Paperless Tickets Flourish Despite 'Grandma Problem'

Hugh Pickens writes "Is a concert ticket a piece of property that its holder has the right to buy and sell as he sees fit, or is it merely a seat-rental contract subject to restrictions determined by its issuer? The Washington Post reports that in an effort to thwart scalpers and dampen ticket reselling on the so-called secondary market, musicians as diverse as Bruce Springsteen, Miley Cyrus, and Metallica have adopted 'paperless ticketing' for some or all of the seats at their live shows. Ticket issuers Ticketmaster and Veritix tout paperless tickets as a way to eliminate worries about lost, stolen, or counterfeit tickets, and to banish long will-call lines. But paperless tickets aren't really tickets at all, but essentially personal seat reservations, secured electronically like airline tickets. Fans buy tickets with a credit card and must then go to the venue with the same credit card and a photo ID to gain admittance. The problem is that Ticketmaster's paperless tickets can't be transferred from a buyer to a second party. The inability to pass along a seat creates what has become known in the industry as the 'grandma problem': it's almost impossible for a grandma living at one end of the country to buy a paperless ticket to giver to a grandchild living at the other end. Without the ability to transfer virtual tickets, brokers and dealers fear being run out of business, and consumers have a harder time selling unwanted tickets. 'People should be free to give away or sell their tickets to whomever they want, whenever they want,' says Gary Adler, a Washington attorney who represents the National Association of Ticket Brokers. 'An open market is really best for consumers.'"

Comments

Limited Options

[Nerdfest]

Of course they flourish. When these are used, people really aren't given another option in most cases. This is much like saying "Despite outrageous fees, TicketMaster flourishes".

Re:Limited Options

[Idbar]

I wonder if ticketmaster will see on this the opportunity: since there are no printed tickets, there is no paper or shipping fees or the "print at home fee"... would they charge the ecological-anti counterfeit fee now?
I don't like their tricks but I also haven't found anyone else that provides the tickets I look for.

Re:Limited Options

[Lumpy]

Then why not a barcode that I can email to someone so they can display it on their phone and have the gate-dolt simply scan it?

Re:Limited Options

[CastrTroy]

You could always just not go to the show. When concert tickets already cost $100 or even much more, and then Ticket Master adds a $12 "convenience fee", which is mandatory, because there is no other way to get tickets, then I stop going to concerts. When I was in university, and I went to a lot of concerts, they were usually small shows at local bars. We never paid more than $20 for a concert ticket, sometimes as little as $5. And there's a lot of free tickets to interesting bands if you keep your eyes open. Why would I want to pay $100 to go to a venue with terrible sound, and sit 200 ft. from the band and the crowd is just filled with a bunch of people who happen to have a lot of money, but aren't all that interested in the music, when I can go to a smaller venue, pay $10, be 10 ft. from the band, the sound isn't any worse, and the crowd is really into it. I guess there's just too many people with too much money, and that's the reason they can demand outrageous prices, and even stoop to things like paperless tickets that you can't resell. Granted there are more people without money, but that's not important, because as long as there are enough people in each city on the tour to buy the tickets, it doesn't matter how much the real fans can afford.

Re:Limited Options

[Pingmaster]

I wholeheartedly agree. All the bands I've seen live, I've either seen for free or very close to it. If you keep your eyes open, even big name bands play small venues here and there. In my hometown, we had a festival every summer with a couple concert stages - acts like the Tea Party, Sloan, Philosopher Kings, Spirit of the West and so on would play there and admission for THE WHOLE FESTIVAL was $5. oh, and beer was $2.50 a bottle. In Ottawa, the Blues Festival is on right now, Iron Maiden is playing (tonight actually). Cost to get in for the day? $60. Yes, that is a little pricey, but it's an all access pass to everything going on today. $150 gets you a pass for the week. As far as smaller venues, keep an eye on your local college/university. sometimes they'll have a band playing and allow non-students to come and pay a cover charge which is usually less than $20.

Re:Limited Options

[dreamt]

I have always loved how Ticketmaster charges you a fee to print up your own tickets, but they at least still have an option to have them mail them to you for free. I simply refuse to pay to save them money.

Re:Limited Options

[HungryHobo]

What I find amusing is how many people in this topic are deluded that this is a good thing.

Sure people hate scalpers but all this will mean is that ticketmaster will do what the scalpers used to do but screw you far harder.
They'll follow the airlines and just charge 10 times as much for a ticket shortly before the show vs the price 6 months before.
They'll up the prices based on how many hits their website gets for that concert.
And finally they won't ever give you a refund or (and this is where they become worse than the scalpers) let you sell the ticket if you find yourself unable to go.

you'll play just as much money to get the tickets as you ever paid to a scalper but the middlemen at ticketmaster will be getting all the cash.(clap your hands and believe, believe real hard if you want the band to get any of the extra income)

I'm with you on the smaller gigs thing.
better atmosphere, better music, better prices.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

You could always just not go to the show. When concert tickets already cost $100 or even much more, and then Ticket Master adds a $12 "convenience fee", which is mandatory, because there is no other way to get tickets, then I stop going to concerts.

This I'll agree with. TicketMaster have created a monopoly on the ticket industry and therefore the "convenience" of buying tickets from them is rather akin to a convenience charge to buy Microsoft Windows or gasoline anymore.

When I was in university, and I went to a lot of concerts, they were usually small shows at local bars. We never paid more than $20 for a concert ticket, sometimes as little as $5. And there's a lot of free tickets to interesting bands if you keep your eyes open. Why would I want to pay $100 to go to a venue with terrible sound, and sit 200 ft. from the band and the crowd is just filled with a bunch of people who happen to have a lot of money, but aren't all that interested in the music, when I can go to a smaller venue, pay $10, be 10 ft. from the band, the sound isn't any worse, and the crowd is really into it.

This, however, I will wholeheartedly disagree with. The last rock concert I went to at {$Major_Venue} was phenomenal. The crowd of thousands was entirely into the show to the point where people stood when the band fired some cannon shots to start the show and never sat down again. Screaming, yelling, cheering, chanting and thousands of people belting out lyrics to the more lively songs is something you can never experience at a bar. That and extreme pyrotechnics.

There's vast differences between a show at a bar (I've been to hundreds) and a rock concert. Namely a show at a bar is something you can do because it's Friday. A major concert event is an uncommon special occasion.

I guess there's just too many people with too much money, and that's the reason they can demand outrageous prices,

I've noticed quite a trend of people on Slashdot being anti-money. Is there a problem with people who work hard and earn more than $40k/year (or 50, 60; whatever the waterline may be) or something? Or must one suffer and live in one's parents' basement earning paltry sums in order to maintain credibility?

and even stoop to things like paperless tickets that you can't resell. Granted there are more people without money, but that's not important, because as long as there are enough people in each city on the tour to buy the tickets, it doesn't matter how much the real fans can afford.

It's simple market economics. You price a good at a level the market will bear. If you sell tickets for $100 apiece and the show sells out in 6 minutes, you price the next show at $120. If it also sells out in under 10 minutes you know your good is priced below market value and you make future pricing decisions accordingly.

The notion that "real fans" are people who have no money and must go to shows only on half price pint night is rather insulting. I'm a music lover and I assure you I am not poor.

If you don't like your lot in life, change it. If you don't want to change your lot in life, quit bitching about it.

Re:Limited Options

[BasilBrush]

Can scalpers resell the bar-code? If so then it defeats the object of ticketless seats.

Re:Limited Options

[xaxa]

If you think $60 is pricey for Iron Maiden, try seeing them in the UK. Sunday day tickets for the Sonisphere festival are £65 -- that's CA$105.

Fortunately, most of the bands I like aren't big enough to charge that much. I paid £45 (or something) to get flamed and splurged on by Rammstein, which was worth it, but I rarely pay more than £15 for any gig.

Re:Limited Options

[TheMeuge]

I've noticed quite a trend of people on Slashdot being anti-money. Is there a problem with people who work hard and earn more than $40k/year (or 50, 60; whatever the waterline may be) or something? Or must one suffer and live in one's parents' basement earning paltry sums in order to maintain credibility?

Let me walk you through this douchebag argument as it applies to musicians:

"Musicians are supposed to love the music, not money. That's why they should be happy if they get paid enough to finance their tour bus and a few pop-tarts. That's why $5-10 is the most anyone should pay for a ticket."

I get to hear this a lot, all over the Internet (and unfortunately more and more in real life):
"Why should doctors make money? They're supposed to be in it to help people, so they should not expect to be able to buy a house or have a nice car. They should be happy with whatever they get. If they wanted money they should not have gone into medicine, and should instead have done X (where X is whatever profession the speaker doesn't belong to and despises for making money)."

There has to be a term for this argument, because I hear it a lot, and it seems very consistent across many enterprises. But familiarity with it doesn't make me want to punch whoever said it in the face any less...

Re:Limited Options

[H3lldr0p]

and even stoop to things like paperless tickets that you can't resell. Granted there are more people without money, but that's not important, because as long as there are enough people in each city on the tour to buy the tickets, it doesn't matter how much the real fans can afford.

It's simple market economics. You price a good at a level the market will bear. If you sell tickets for $100 apiece and the show sells out in 6 minutes, you price the next show at $120. If it also sells out in under 10 minutes you know your good is priced below market value and you make future pricing decisions accordingly.

The notion that "real fans" are people who have no money and must go to shows only on half price pint night is rather insulting. I'm a music lover and I assure you I am not poor.

If you don't like your lot in life, change it. If you don't want to change your lot in life, quit bitching about it.

You see, the problem with this attitude is that our culture doesn't belong to just those with money. It belongs to everyone. That's the point of having a shared culture in the first place. By saying that those who want to see the latest and greatest in concert have to pay up, or as you so quaintly put it, "...change their lot in life...", you have essentially created a division that only artificially exists. That artificial division then goes on to create ones which cause the real problems.

This is not to say there isn't an issue with the way shows and concerts are priced. There obviously is if entire industries are created around little pieces of paper being traded for ever greater amounts of money. The solution, however, is not cutting people out of the cultural conversation and telling them that they need to STFU and to go away if they don't have the funds to participate.

Re:Limited Options

[BasilBrush]

you'll play just as much money to get the tickets as you ever paid to a scalper but the middlemen at ticketmaster will be getting all the cash.(clap your hands and believe, believe real hard if you want the band to get any of the extra income)

Bands/promoters don't have to use Ticketmaster. They will only do so if Ticketmaster offers a proposition that they like, and better than any competitor. If tickets from Ticketmaster rise, then for sure more money is going to the band or promoter who contracted Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster will be on a percentage; they can't just raise the prices and keep all the extra to themselves.

So yes, if you want as much of the ticket money as possible to go to the band, then it's far better that Ticketmaster gets any extras than scalpers do.

Personally I think scalpers are the scum of the earth, and would make it a criminal offence to sell tickets for greater than face value. With penalties similar to the penalties for prostitution. Have the police put the scalpers in jail for the night, and they'll lose any money from any unsold tickets they have in their possession at the time.

Re:Limited Options

[CastrTroy]

Nice to see a fellow person from Ottawa. The blues fest does bring some really big names into town, and for a pretty decent price. Don't understand why it's called bluesfest, as most of the music isn't blues, but I digress. Another great place to see shows is at the EX. Pay for you price of admission to the park ($6.50, 6 years ago, haven't been in a while), and some shows are free. I saw a lot great bands at the EX, like the Tea Party, as well some people like Avril Lavigne. Sure her music isn't great, but at $6.50 a ticket it was worth it. I'll go see almost any concert for $6.50.

Re:Limited Options

[L4t3r4lu5]

Ok, rich boy. How about TicketMaster make their "convenience charge" $50? How about the venue sells tickets at $100 each, Ticketmaster buy all of them, and sell them for $170 a piece? Don't you feel like you're being shafted? That's a $100 ticket which is costing you $220 because of a monopoly on ticket sales.

I'm glad you're rolling in dough like Scrooge McDuck, but I'm not. There are some bands I really want to see, but won't because of this racket on ticket sales.

As for your live band / rock concert comparison, I couldn't disagree more. At the concert you're a blank face amongst thousands of others. You might enjoy yourself, but you're still only a number on a ticket stub to the guy on stage. In a bar, there's every chance you can chat to the guy afterwards, buy him a beer, see what influences him, any other local bands you should check out etc etc. It's a much more personal experience.

Don't get me wrong, I loved shouting "Angus!" at AC/DC when they played Whole Lotta Rosie at Download this year, but I enjoyed the personal atmosphere of Turisas in a small local venue a lot more.

Re:Limited Options

[tepples]

our culture doesn't belong to just those with money. It belongs to everyone. That's the point of having a shared culture in the first place.

This was true up until the copyright term extensions began. Culture belongs to those who own the copyrights, and in the case of concerts, that's the music publishers.

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, actually this reasoning is the source of the problem - the market price of the tickets is even higher than $100 (the concerts are sold out quickly, and scalpers are able to resell them for a higher price), but the organizers are lowering the price "so that the fans can afford it".

If the full market price was charged, there wouldn't be any of these hundreds of resale/broker/scalping "businessmen" supported by this price differential.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

Ok, rich boy.

See, you lost me right there. I never said I was rich, I just said I was far from bring poor. I work a lot of hours and yes, I make a decent living. Your sour grapes go nowhere to further your argument and instead make you appear to be a sad, pathetic retch who would rather complain than change something about their life.

As I said before; If you don't like your lot in life, change it. If you don't want to change your lot in life, quit bitching about it. I didn't like my lot in life so I worked to change it. I worked hard and earned every damned penny. So if you think your tirade against people who have earned their success is going to take anything away from me then you're delusional.

Go sit at a free show and delude yourself into thinking this is the be-all and end-all to music. But always remember that the band you're seeing is most likely doing this so they can ultimately wind up in a large venue playing to thousands of fans. That's what drives musicians and that's what created the music industry and those mega successful bands are where your local, indy bands got their inspiration.

Go sit and suffer in silence in the filth you've created for yourself and let the world be.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

Let me walk you through this douchebag argument as it applies to musicians:

"Musicians are supposed to love the music, not money. That's why they should be happy if they get paid enough to finance their tour bus and a few pop-tarts. That's why $5-10 is the most anyone should pay for a ticket."

I get to hear this a lot, all over the Internet (and unfortunately more and more in real life): "Why should doctors make money? They're supposed to be in it to help people, so they should not expect to be able to buy a house or have a nice car. They should be happy with whatever they get. If they wanted money they should not have gone into medicine, and should instead have done X (where X is whatever profession the speaker doesn't belong to and despises for making money)."

There has to be a term for this argument, because I hear it a lot, and it seems very consistent across many enterprises. But familiarity with it doesn't make me want to punch whoever said it in the face any less...

Hear hear. What people apparently don't realize about those arguments is the fact that they're describing Communism. Everyone should work to the common good, nobody should have more than anybody else, ...

But hey, it worked so well in the Soviet Union, right?

As I said, there's this trend that's cropped up lately that's decidedly anti-money, anti-success, etc. I can get behind the whole anti-corporation and anti-monopoly arguments but aren't we all out to improve ourselves and our lives? If not; why are we here?

Perhaps Slashdot just has a higher than average representation of the lowest rung of the technical ladder. I suppose it makes sense that the most lowly employees of any given company and the unemployed would have disproportionately more time to comment on stories and therefore their group-think would overwhelm the discussions at hand.

Alas, I digress ...

Re:Limited Options

[UCSCTek]

I agree with the ideal, but the specifics behind the situation don't support it. If a band can make significantly more money by playing at large venues with relatively expensive tickets, most will probably do so. Easiest workaround to me, just pirate the albums to save money for the concerts. No moral qualms, you're still giving them all the money you can afford to give.

Re:Limited Options

[Monkeedude1212]

Hear hear. What people apparently don't realize about those arguments is the fact that they're describing Communism. Everyone should work to the common good, nobody should have more than anybody else, ...

But hey, it worked so well in the Soviet Union, right?

Okay, you know, I hear this a lot - and it's really starting to bug me. How can one bash on "how well" Communism worked when it's spread was deliberately stopped by the west? Vietnam War? Korean War? Afghanistan?

Seriously, Communism was on a roll. And if you actually studied it, it wasn't a bad system.

Re:Limited Options

[Hatta]

I've noticed quite a trend of people on Slashdot being anti-money. Is there a problem with people who work hard and earn more than $40k/year (or 50, 60; whatever the waterline may be) or something?

No, there's a problem with people who golf 4 days a week, spend the rest of their time in meetings instead of doing actual work, and make more than people who put in an honest 40, 60, or 80 hours of labor. Music executives for instance.

Re:Limited Options

[Dishevel]

You are so right. I say go even further. Kill scalpers on sight. Greedy motherfuckers charging MARKET VALUE for the stuff that they own? WTF?!?!?!

What was that sarcasm tag thingy? Oh well fuck it. Not like the mods would know either.

Re:Limited Options

[Tom]

It's simple market economics. You price a good at a level the market will bear. If you sell tickets for $100 apiece and the show sells out in 6 minutes, you price the next show at $120. If it also sells out in under 10 minutes you know your good is priced below market value and you make future pricing decisions accordingly.

The problem is that it isn't really the hypothetical free market at work here.

Remember, a real market requires a theoretically unlimited number of both suppliers and buyers. If there is only one supplied (and with limited supply!) then free market theory simply does not apply. You can not argue from a theory that isn't applicable. Well, you can, like you can try to explain gravity with electro-magnetism, but it doesn't make any sense, even if you put in enough confusing words that it appears to, at first glance.

In this particular case, there is a vast amount of factors that can easily distort everything. The most common is that the show does not actually sell out. A lot of those tickets are bought by brokers. Exactly because they buy them all up so that the show sells out, they can then turn around and sell them on for higher prices, because - once again - there is not actual market. Supply is close to non-existent, which means they can ask almost as much as they want. Buyers have the option to buy at inflated prices, or not buy at all. There is no alternative, no other supplier and most importantly, buyers must act on very limited information (perfect information of all participants is another small detail of free market theory that everyone conveniently forgets about). They don't know if the show is really sold out and they have a rare opportunity in front of them, or if they're talking with a broker sitting on a few hundred tickets who is equally desperate in getting them sold.

Re:Limited Options

[NekSnappa]

Saturday night I paid a $3.50 service fee to buy a ticket at the box office of the venue on the day of the show.
I'm still not sure how that makes any sense.

Re:Limited Options

[Dishevel]

Hey. I take offence to that. I am a lowly little IT guy at a cab company. I get paid for shit. But I still believe in personal responsibility and market forces. Now go look at all the guilty rich wining in their sad commie voices about children and third world companies and fairness. Wealth is not an indicator on how you feel it should be made.

Re:Limited Options

[Dishevel]

There are no artificial divisions.

Never mind. I give up on educating the fucking retarded.

Come on over to my house. We will do personal wealth inventories and then throw an equality tax on the one with the most. It is the only fair way to do things.

Re:Limited Options

[nelsonal]

Sure the west stopped it's spread, but Communism failed in almost all the nations it was tried (except a couple small ones) because it corrupted from the inside. Successful communism works only when there are majorly strong ties to the community, that overcome the normal selfish desire everyone has. Otherwise communism becomes little removed from capitalism except political power replaces money as the currency.

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

Go sit at a free show and delude yourself into thinking this is the be-all and end-all to music. But always remember that the band you're seeing is most likely doing this so they can ultimately wind up in a large venue playing to thousands of fans. That's what drives musicians and that's what created the music industry and those mega successful bands are where your local, indy bands got their inspiration.

You clearly don't appreciate music; you appreciate the fecal matter the RIAA expels and calls music. There is a good reason many indie bands that get signed to a major label lose their huge fanbases. Apparently you are unaware of a pretty recent invention called "the internet" which you seem to be using at this moment, which allows anyone to distribute their music in any manner they wish on their own with every bit of power the RIAA has.

It's pretty much a universal axiom that anyone who makes music for the money is not making music worth listening to. You really should expand your horizons beyond the tiny fraction you see and hear, maybe you'll realize money is hardly the end-all goal of all worthwhile human endeavor.

Re:Limited Options

[Monkeedude1212]

The part where you are wrong is your second sentence. Culture does NOT belong to everyone. I mean it'd be nice if it could but there is always some differences that occur in social hierarchy. Culture's been neatly and crafted to aim towards those with moneys for longer than ticketmaster has been around. By essentially cutting down ticket prices to $15 at a bar, you're still shunning the homeless from participating, or even those that have trouble covering all the bills.

Basically this line will always be artificially created, and the price simply determine where it lies.

And of course, you always have the option of NOT participating in a $100 show. If you want your band to offer tickets for less, perhaps you should be discussing that with your band, via fan mail. They are not obligated to use ticketmaster. But perhaps the band you idolize on stage is after it for the money as well, and is more than happy to take it from you. Just things to consider when complaining about ticket prices.

Re:Limited Options

[sammyF70]

I agree with you that the GP's "rich boy" call was out of place, but so is your "change your life" argument. You can work your ass off and still not make enough money to get past the "working to survive" stage, and you can be a lazy asshole and be rich like hell. It's not as if poor people are actively choosing to be poor or don't try to have enough to pay for luxury goods (in this case concert tickets). Generally it's a matter of chance and circumstances which leads either way, with, of course some personal work involved (if you don't try chances are you won't succeed neither ... although even THAT is no absolute).

Add to that the disappearing middle class, which mean most people fall into either really piss poor or fuckingly well off and you have your reason why many ressent people talking about money as if it was something everybody has. It IS galling when you tried all your life to achieve some financial success, for some reason didn't succeed (accidents, bad timing, plain bad luck ...), and someone comes along who might or might not have worked at least as much as you feel you did who basically tells you "I was lucky, It's completely normal and if you weren't then I despise you (change your life!)"

Sadly many who were successful just forget or ignore how much luck brought them to this point and how fast things can change for the worst and favor their ego instead . Humans being human, poor people, especially those who are really trying to better their lot, also forget how fast a lucky break might come, and don't reflect whether they would react similarly if they came to money eventually (although going from rich to poor is *a lot* easier than the other way around)

I was at both end of the spectrum and I'm currently on welfare, but at least things seems to look slightly up (aka. I might have enough to survive AND pay the rent), so I think I'm relatively well qualified to talk about it ;)

This isn't a personal attack by the way. I'm just answering your question about "why does mentioning the fact that one has money produce so much hate"

Re:Limited Options

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Bands/promoters don't have to use Ticketmaster.

Tell that to Pearl Jam.

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

The crowd of thousands was entirely into the show to the point where people stood when the band fired some cannon shots to start the show and never sat down again. Screaming, yelling, cheering, chanting and thousands of people belting out lyrics to the more lively songs is something you can never experience at a bar.

How many hundred audience plants did it take to simulate this "spontaneous participation?" Performers have been doing this for decades and the "follow the crowd" fans have followed. (Sony is not the only one to pay for this kind of promotion.)

Re:Limited Options

[Weezul]

Raves often cream both major concerts and bar shows for raw fun. Bar shows are usually more fun than concerts because you're there with friends and/or you make friends.

I'd happily attend a Rush concert, but I'd never manage to drag along my girlfriend, or even local male friends probably. There are some people like Lady Gaga that I'd attend for political reasons, assuming my girlfriend had proposed the idea, which isn't likely.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

I agree with you that the GP's "rich boy" call was out of place, but so is your "change your life" argument.

My statement was meant to be taken as a whole. People need to learn to accept their lot in life. If you don't like it, change your situation. Complaining about it focuses negative energy and generally gets you nowhere but further down in the hole.

I'd never presume to make a judgment about what a person has or earns; however I make judgments all the time about someone who earns X but wants to live the lifestyle of someone who earns X*2. I know many people who have combined household incomes that are well below my own income but who are perfectly happy. Conversely, I know people who's incomes are vastly superior to my own who are miserable.

We live to our means and easy credit and "keep up with the Jones's" syndrome runs rampant in our society.

My argument is to live within your means and be happy with what you have. Individuals are the authors of our own destiny. Hence my statement that if you don't like what you have, work to change it. If you're not willing to take positive steps to change what you have; don't complain about it, and certainly don't rail against someone who has [more|better|different] standard of living than you. It does no good for anybody. Am I wrong?

This isn't a personal attack by the way. I'm just answering your question about "why does mentioning the fact that one has money produce so much hate"

It's not even a case of mentioning money; it seems to be a case where someone mentions something that would require money, and that in and of itself becomes a target of ire.

One of my goals in life was to have stability and financial security. I achieved that some years ago and now I'm working towards the next level. I have my own goals in mind. I also have non monetary goals which I'm also working to achieve. There are people who have other goals in life, many of which are non monetary, which make them happy, and that's great for them.

If you're not happy in what you're doing or where you are, you have to ask yourself why you're doing it or why you're there. If there's a drastic change necessary to alter your situation to the point where you're happy you should consider making it. One area where I draw the line is people who don't feel the need to improve themselves or their personal situations. That's always driven me up the wall.

Back to the topic at hand, if premium concert tickets at major venues is one of your goals in life, you'll prioritize it and find a way to make it happen. If it's not a priority it won't happen. Sometimes it takes sacrifice in other areas of one's life to attain certain other things and that's a choice we all have to make. When I was struggling working 3 jobs to make ends meet, there were times when I decided that I was simply going to have {$X} and there was nothing anybody could to do stand in my way, and I made it happen.

For those who don't like concerts, rock shows, major venues or Ticketmaster; why expend the energy on this thread complaining about it? What good is it accomplishing in their lives?

Re:Limited Options

[Minion of Eris]

Finally, someone who realises that "Communism" has the same root as "community". Like Socialism is related to Society. And just to repeat myself from an earlier thread "Communism has not been tried and failed: Communism has not been tried." Stalin, Lenin, Mao, even Trotsky were at best egomaniacal political hacks, but that should not discredit Marx and Engles.

Re:Limited Options

[sammyF70]

okay .. now you're officially creeping me out. This is /. for god's sake! You're not supposed to reply with statements I agree with!

Re:Limited Options

[TheMeuge]

Add to that the disappearing middle class,

As I see it, one of the major reasons for the "disappearing middle class" is that the Slashdot attitude towards professionals is now widespread.

The middle class is not magically-disappearing just because of stupid politicians and greedy rich people. It's disappearing because someone who makes $50k/year will strongly support changing the economical and legislative framework to make it impossible for someone earning $150k/year to continue making that money... regardless of the amount of effort that went into attaining their qualifications.

Re:Limited Options

[sammyF70]

whilst people making $150k/year will strongly support changing the economical and legislative framework to keep as much of their money as possible, no matter whether the taxes they would have to pay would help people in need who won't ever be able to make $150k a year due to illness or lack of education. Now ... who do you think has the better leverage on the framework?

Re:Limited Options

[Smidge204]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will correct me even if I'm not)...

Counterfeit tickets notwithstanding, don't the scalpers have to buy the tickets in the first place? So even if there is ticket scalping going on, didn't the venue already collect the ticket fee?

If the scalpers don't sell all the tickets they bought, the venue still makes their money.

The only ones who get screwed are the people who buy tickets from the scalpers - which, if you're willing to pay more for the ticket, would you complain if the original ticket price was raised to the scalper's price? It's all the same in the end...
=Smidge=

Re:Limited Options

[nogginthenog]

TicketMaster are in bed with Clear Channel. Clear Channel own most of the large US venues and 90%+ of US radio stations. Also, the price you see on the ticket is not necessarily what goes to the band/promoter. It's common in the ticket business for the promoter/venue pay a kickback to TM.

Re:Limited Options

[TheMeuge]

"Lack of education"? Seriously?

I pulled my own weight... went to public school... got my own scholarships... and now you want me to pay taxes on the money I earned after growing a hump from studying and working >80 hours a week... to subsidize someone whose sole qualification is "lack of education" because they either didn't work hard or couldn't care any less about doing well in school?

How about some fairness for a change...

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

Bands/promoters don't have to use Ticketmaster. They will only do so if Ticketmaster offers a proposition that they like, and better than any competitor.

In most cases, that proposition is "access to venues that hold more than a few hundred people."

Venues typically have a vendor that exclusively sells tickets to events they hold. TicketWeb has a decent presence in venues that hold under 500 people, but once you get close to the 500 area, it's more likely to be TicketMaster. Over 500 is almost exclusively TicketMaster.

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

I pulled my own weight... went to public school... got my own scholarships... and now you want me to pay taxes on the money I earned after growing a hump from studying and working >80 hours a week... to subsidize someone

Did you say public school? Do you mean that in the British sense, where "public" means paid for by lots of expensive private funs, or in the American sense, where "public" means partially taxpayer subsidized? If the latter, it's somewhat hypocritical to use a publically supported institution and then begrudge being taxed. (If it's the former, then carry on, no complaint in that department.)

"Fairness" ... the world isn't, sadly. Part of living in a modern society is being taxed, even if we may think it's unfair or unconstitutional. You can imagine, if you like, that your particular tax dollars are going to road repairs, salaries of police and firefighters, or any other government program, rather than directly funding deadbeats. (Clearly, that wouldn't be 100% true. But it's also short sighted to cry about the deadbeats and forget about the people with genuinely bad circumstances or the general public's need for infrastructure.)

Posted anon, hopefully it won't undo my moderation.

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really "market value" if you buy tickets in order to create an artificially short supply.

Re:Limited Options

[sammyF70]

see ... That's where we have to agree to disagree. I am talking compassion toward those who did not have the lucky breaks you certainly did have, you're talking fairness while ignoring the fact that success is not only a result of hard work in favor of inflating your ego ...
A "lucky break" can be a lack of "bad luck", by the way

Re:Limited Options

[mccrew]

Bands/promoters don't have to use Ticketmaster.

While this is technically correct, they have to get in bed with Ticketmaster if they want to play at any major venue. This is because Ticketmaster has exclusive rights to every major venue, so they are effectively the only game in town.

Re:Limited Options

[TheMeuge]

Congratulations on using a red herring to move the debate from discussing fair compensation to nonexistent realm of debating the merits of taxation.

Re:Limited Options

[TheMeuge]

So... you assume that everyone who is successful got there by virtue of luck... and should thus sacrifice their success for those who haven't. Correct?

Basically, you're a fan of equality of condition.

Re:Limited Options

[GodfatherofSoul]

I don't go to concerts, but your rant sounds *exactly* like my complaints about sports venues. A bunch of people are showing up at games with money and no interest beyond saying they were there and being seen there (LA Lakers games are the apex of this trend). Working class folks are being priced out of live venues. I'm on a Steelers forum where guys were complaining that for years, they'd try to line up for ticket purchases online as soon as they were available. And, if they were as little as a 30 seconds too late all the available ticket would be scalped and posted for sale at the ticket broker sites.

But, that's the free market at work.

Re:Limited Options

[Nerdfest]

The only recourse the bands are left with is the equivalent of somebody's response to my original comment: "So don't play there". I don't think it's particularly fair that this is the only recourse, but I guess life doesn't have to be fair.

Re:Limited Options

[jaymz666]

Of course, scalpers pay people to stand in line at plenty of places around the area to buy the tickets at face value on the day they go on sale so they have an over abundance of tickets to resell at a higher price.

Re:Limited Options

[Bakkster]

I've noticed quite a trend of people on Slashdot being anti-money. Is there a problem with people who work hard and earn more than $40k/year (or 50, 60; whatever the waterline may be) or something? Or must one suffer and live in one's parents' basement earning paltry sums in order to maintain credibility?

Let me walk you through this douchebag argument as it applies to musicians:

"Musicians are supposed to love the music, not money. That's why they should be happy if they get paid enough to finance their tour bus and a few pop-tarts. That's why $5-10 is the most anyone should pay for a ticket."

You're right, and this argument ignores three very important points:
1) Playing music well is expensive. Equipment to perform at one of these large venues with an acceptable sound (to both the audience and the musician), plus spares in case things break, adds up to a lot (particularly for drummers). In short: the costs are more than that of the tour bus and food.
2) Continuing this line, as a professional musician, there probably isn't a secondary source of income. With the amount of practice required, and that except for teaching music lessons or being a contract-hire studio musician (aka, 'selling out' to some), the skills don't really translate well, a day job may be out of the question. If you want to see a musician, you have to be willing to accept that if you expect them to entertain you for a living, they need to make enough money to make a living themselves (including their dependents and eventual retirement).
3) There are a lot of other people dipping into that pot of money. The venue, promoter, manager, techs, and everyone else involved get some of that money too. There's just no way that each member of a 5-piece band selling $5 tickets will walk away with $1 for each attendee.

That's not to say some musicians aren't gluttons for cash, but the general expectation seems to be that of a vow of poverty.

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with prostitution?

Re:Limited Options

[sammyF70]

no. I assume that everyone who is successful got there for an important part because of luck. I'm not sure what you mean with equality of condition, but what I'm a fan of is the idea that meritocracy, as good as it sounds, is unachievable and one's status is not a reflection of one's value to society. On this, I definitely agree with Alain de Botton.

This means that assuming everybody has the same opportunity and only "needs to work harder to succeed" is a fallacy. It also means that people looking down on those who weren't as lucky as they were are, in my eyes, very egocentric and slightly despicable. Being mean spirited, I actually often wish they would get a bit of bad luck and find themselves at the bottom again for a while. It helps with the perspective.

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who don't like concerts, rock shows, major venues or Ticketmaster; why expend the energy on this thread complaining about it? What good is it accomplishing in their lives?

I agree with your views about music and money; however, Ticketmaster does charge fees for which I don't quite see the added value. Where's the competition? I think bitching about that might actually help, it's the first step towards a more open market.

Re:Limited Options

[TheMeuge]

Being mean spirited, I actually often wish they would get a bit of bad luck and find themselves at the bottom again for a while.

Thanks for confirming everything I've asserted all along.

Your "philosophies" are little more than justification for a jealous hatred of people who are more successful than you.

Given your opinions, it's really no wonder.

Re:Limited Options

[sammyF70]

sigh ... no. I'm not jealous of you. Why should I? I had my ten or fifteen really successful years, I'm now on welfare but I live on a Caribbean island and my priorities have changed : my family is much more important than "earning as much as I can". I still work a lot (10-14 hours daily), I just don't make money from my work for different reasons, most of which I can't change no matter what. And I might have a lucky break in a few month, which will give me the opportunity to get off welfare (while still not making tons of money though), thanks to good circumstances and excellent accidental timing.

I still think you should get a really bad break and end up without money though, and as the economy looks right now, it might be sooner than later. Thinking your success is solely due to your personal awesomeness just reinforce my opinion that you are truly clueless, and a reality check might do you good on a personal basis.

Interestingly, the same "they are just jealous of our success" argument has been used in conjunction with 9/11 and even back then it was complete bullshit.

Re:Limited Options

[smartr]

At the same time, I imagine many successful have enough money and want the *power* to provide an affordable way for their fans to come to the show. These lower prices likely increase the amount of money an artist makes by broadening their fan base demographics. You can claim market this and market that, but the scalpers are making a profit by breaking a contract. Say you go to a buffet and you've been given free reign to eat as much as you want. Why can't you resell the food you've been given to other people at a lower rate? I mean, the unlimited amount of food you have is clearly priced below market value. The food was given to you under the condition that you were the one that was going to consume it. The same goes for most tickets.

Re:Limited Options

[BasilBrush]

No, the people that get screwed are the ones that would have bought the tickets from the box office at face value, had the scalpers not bought most of them up first.

Re:Limited Options

[Phrogman]

Its a given assumption by those who are affluent in the US (and Canada where I live) that: a) If you are poor, you aren't trying hard enough b) If you are earning less than me, you are "worthless" as in a lesser human being c) Everyone can change their circumstances at will, and if they don't, then they are just lazy. Our NA society is predicate upon the principle that having more money makes you a better person. The legal system reflects that, the way the laws are applied reflects that etc. Why? Because the laws and legal system were created by those with more influence and affluence, and are maintained by them.

Re:Limited Options

[demonlapin]

At this point, given the number of places that have had ostensibly Communist governments, it's also a very safe bet that Marx and Engels were just wrong about how things would work (e.g., historical inevitability), and that anyone who propounds Communism is actually trying to set up a totalitarian dictatorship and should be treated accordingly.

Re:Limited Options

[demonlapin]

It's amazing how much correlation there is between poverty and bitterness.

Actually, I think you'll find that the correlation is between lack of ability and jealousy.

Re:Limited Options

[Mitreya]

Bands/promoters don't have to use Ticketmaster

Bullshit. They often do! If you don't know what you talking about, don't post!
The reason that a band like Pearl Jam has been required to deal with Ticketmaster is because Ticketmaster has exclusive contracts with most major venues for concerts and with almost all significant promoters of concerts in the United States. In essence, if you play any of these venues or if you deal with these promoters, Ticketmaster will claim that its contracts give it the exclusive right to distribute tickets for your concert. This affords Ticketmaster tremendous power in this business.

Re:Limited Options

[sycodon]

It seems that the "Grandma problem" essentially describes a scalper or "ticket broker" (a scalper who operates from an office in much larger volumes)

Re:Limited Options

[Smidge204]

That's exactly what I said.

Yet they were willing to pay the higher price, so my question is would these people be willing to pay that extra amount directly from the venue?

The idea here is, if the venue can eliminate the scalper, then why won't the venue charge the higher price that people are obviously willing to pay?
=Smidge=

Re:Limited Options

[Mitreya]

You could always just not go to the show. When concert tickets already cost $100 or even much more, and then Ticket Master adds a $12 "convenience fee", which is mandatory, because there is no other way to get tickets, then I stop going to concerts.

Yes and no. Nowdays I go to concerns very, very rarely. But please understand that the demand for the band/concerts is not perfectly flexible. Just like everyone else I happen to *really* like some performers. And an arbitrary other band/show will *not* replace what I really like. And from what I understand most venues have exclusive contract with ticketmaster, forcing many performers to deal with them. So we are stuck and a better solution would be to break the evil monopoly instead of giving up on my favorite bands.

Re:Limited Options

[Mitreya]

You are so right. I say go even further. Kill scalpers on sight. Greedy motherfuckers charging MARKET VALUE for the stuff that they own? WTF?!?!?!

Most systems (including ticketmaster) have some control schemes supposedly preventing bulk commercial purchase. I suspect (and in some cases - know) that many of the scalpers get their tickets directly from the venue, sometimes they are the employees. They are not quick speculators operating in a fair market - they cheat.

Re:Limited Options

[Mitreya]

The only ones who get screwed are the people who buy tickets from the scalpers - which, if you're willing to pay more for the ticket, would you complain if the original ticket price was raised to the scalper's price?

I am fairly certain that scalpers have other ways of getting tickets directly from the venue. If they had to pay ticketmaster fees for each ticket and deal with anti-bulk-purchase defense mechanisms (that ticketmaster has), they would sell fewer tickets for more money.
Red Sox (nominal) ticket prices are intentionally kept unreasonably low and re-sold by the employees.

Re:Limited Options

[xanadu113]

If you REALLY want to support the band, buy merchandise at the show... One time at a concert, two of my friends had walked me to the concert, but they didn't have tickets... A ticket scalper was trying to sell me two tickets for them, and I told him I didn't have any money and neither did they, and I already had a ticket for myself. He hands me two tickets, free of charge, and says "show your friends a good time." Not all ticket scalpers are evil. In his case, he realized he had tickets to a show that DIDN'T sell out, so he would lose out on the money either way... So he might as well just give them away at this point.

Re:Limited Options

[mcgrew]

When I was in university, and I went to a lot of concerts, they were usually small shows at local bars. We never paid more than $20 for a concert ticket, sometimes as little as $5.

Back in my day (before the parasites that are known as ticketmaster), big name concerts were $3 for the cheap seats and $5 for the front row. I saw the Doors for $5 (ten rows back), Blind Faith with Delaney and Bonney for $5, Yes for free (My then-wife won the tickets in a radio contest). They had the Mississippi River Festival at my college, with big name acts there almost every night. Tickets were the same as Kiel Auditorium; $3-5.

Prices started shooting up when Ticketmaster was born. These days I shun big name concerts; if I go see a local band at a bar I can drink a beer while listening, and not have to go through anti-drug security hassles to get in.

I guess there's just too many people with too much money

Some people have too many dollars and not enough sense.

Re:Limited Options

[BasilBrush]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1709000&cid=32810964&art_pos=3

Re:Limited Options

[sirlark]

Mod parent up, if you want an open market you have to deal with the 'capitalist entrepreneurs'. A better way to control scalping would be to simply not sell tickets in bulk except via 'authorised channels', i.e. legit dealers like ticket master. Course then scalpers will just crowd source...

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's not really market value. They use sneaky (potentially illegal, depending on your interpretation of some laws) to get all the tickets before the ACTUAL consumers have a chance. Then they charge inflated prices because there is NO OTHER OPTION to get the tickets. It's "market value" in the sense that if they charge too much, people won't buy them I suppose, but it is NOT "market value" in the sense that it's an open market with people having a fair chance to compete.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

So... you assume that everyone who is successful got there by virtue of luck... and should thus sacrifice their success for those who haven't. Correct?

Basically, you're a fan of equality of condition.

Yeah, I've often heard this philosophy myself. When you really boil someone's situation down, however, you typically find choices along the way that one may equate to "bad luck". If you chose to associate with that bad crowd of people and landed in jail - bad luck? If you chose to have unprotected sex and got an STI/STD and/or someone got pregnant - bad luck? If you chose to go rock climbing and fell and broke your legs - bad luck?

There's a million examples, but I see it all the time when people complain about their luck all the while they've made and often continue to make poor choices which lead them further down the path they're on.

Much as I'm not a great believer of things like "The Secret" (movie, book et al.) I do believe quite strongly that one's attitude and outlook will have great bearing on one's successes or failures in life.

The corollary to this is those who always believe someone's out to get them / keep them down. Usually they find themselves being put in an almost constant state of "down" and their attitude becomes self fulfilling.

I do draw the line at positive hopeful outlooks that border on the naivete, however. You can't pray your way out of bankruptcy, folks.

Re:Limited Options

[Fnord666]

Individuals are the authors of our own destiny. (...) Am I wrong?

Yes (and no). Unfortunately this view incorporates the false dichotomy that an individual's destiny is completely within his or her control. Reality is somewhat different. Yes, in an ideal world everyone has access to the same educational and occupational opportunities as everyone else and they can make as much or as little of their life as they choose. That's the theory anyway. In practice, that isn't the world we live in today. Everyone doesn't have the same opportunities or background. There is no level playing field and we don't all start out equal.

Re:Limited Options

[crazyj]

Bands/promoters don't have to use Ticketmaster. They will only do so if Ticketmaster offers a proposition that they like, and better than any competitor.

Wrong. TicketMaster signs long term contracts with venues to be the sole provider of ticketing for all events at that venue. The promoters pick venues based upon the size that they think the performer can draw. Therefore, if the promoter picks a venue that is contracted by TicketMaster the show is forced to use TicketMaster as the ticketing platform. If there is no properly sized venue in a city/region that is not under contract with TicketMaster (there rarely is unless you’re talking about small venues) then the promoter/performer has no choice but to use TicketMaster or not perform in that area. (See: Pearl Jam, early 90s) And as for the stupidly named “Convenience Fees,” that is pretty much all the money that TicketMaster makes on that sale (minus their credit card fees). Here’s a rough breakdown of who gets what from your TicketMaster purchase:

Ticket Price This goes to the promoter, sometimes minus a few percent to TicketMaster Convenience Fee Ticketmaster's profit Facility Fee Mostly goes to the promoter. A small percentage may be retained by TicketMaster Ticketfast Fee ($2.50) Pure profit for TicketMaster. Ironically they’ll snail mail your tickets to you for free. Shipping Charges They may charge you $15, $19, etc, but their costs are WAY less, on the order of $4-8 per UPS package. The rest is profit for TicketMaster

J Cobb
Owner, Team One Tickets & Sports Tours, Inc.

Re:Limited Options

[mcgrew]

Bands/promoters don't have to use Ticketmaster.

Yeah, like I don't have to use Comcast. I can use dialup and they can play in bars.

They will only do so if Ticketmaster offers a proposition that they like, and better than any competitor.

Ticketmaster has a monopoly. They don't have any competetitors. Why do you think ticket prices have risen from $5 to usually over $100 while bread went from $.30 to $1.00 in the same time period? If bread has gone up like concert tickets you'd be paying $25 a loaf. Concert prices are highway robbery, and Ticketmaster needs to be investigated for unfair and uncompetetive practices. Ticketmaster is a den of theieves.

With penalties similar to the penalties for prostitution.

What do you have against prostitutes? They perform a valuable service to society.

Re:Limited Options

[DavidTC]

I find it amazing that you can see fricking Broadway shows, at full price, less than most concerts! Seriously, full price Broadway tickets, like $70, and you can actually find them for half that.

And the concerts get held at venues with horrible acoustics like stadiums!

What the hell is going on with music?

Re:Limited Options

[JustABlitheringIdiot]

I agree with you for the most part especially the bit about the market and I too can afford to go to the higher priced shows. However I think that you are missing one point. It's not necessarily that people are anti-money but that you are pricing out such a large portion of the fan base. Unfortunately not everyone has the luxury of a good paying job (or parents/guardian/lover who can pay for them). This also extends to other things beyond just concerts, case in point tickets to the NY Yankees.

Time was even the poorest folks in the Bronx could afford to go see one game every once in a while for a few dollars (I think I got a ticket for $13 at one point). But now the nose bleed seats are $50 yes they still sell out the stadium but they have priced out a substantial portion of their most rabid fan base.

So all I am saying is that this shouldn't be about what you or I can afford but rather what a large portion of the appropriate fan base can afford.

Re:Limited Options

[DavidTC]

Well, Marx said that communism would sorta happen by itself. It's possible he just hasn't been right yet, and if that happens, it will work.

All communism so far has been imposed at gunpoint by the government, not at 'strikepoint' by workers who refuse to work solely for the benefit of others. In fact, the closest to what Marx proposed has been the social democracies of Europe, and those seem to work pretty well.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

So all I am saying is that this shouldn't be about what you or I can afford but rather what a large portion of the appropriate fan base can afford.

What is the impetus from the point of view of the owners of the organization, managers of the band or venue to lower the prices if they're selling out all the seats?

There are only x days per year in which they can schedule an event. There are only y seats in the venue. That allows for (x*y)*$ where y, of course, is a variable depending on seat proximity, colour, amenities, etc.

Now, if the venue is selling out at an aggregate average price of $60 per ticket, and they reduce that average to $30 per ticket, those in the higher income brackets that have always flooded the seats will continue to do so (they'll just have more money left over in their wallets aftwards), still pushing out a lot of the lower income brackets who may not have the ability or speed to purchase tickets quickly, yet the people on the back end will lose 50% of their revenue.

So where's the upside for them to lower their price?!?

Re:Limited Options

[rutledjw]

Disagree.

For the larger shows you have the "scalpers" who usually use scripts to corner large sections of seats and then re-sell at absurd rates. There have been PLENTY of stories regarding abuse in this regard. Ticketmaster is hardly known for being fan-friendly, but this is a better alternative to the present system.

In the end, they'll have to create some kind of way to transfer tickets. I can't see you 10X scenario though, that's hypothetical at best. But for now, they're trying to eliminate abuse by "brokers". I think this *IS* a good think, even if TM are a bunch of turkeys.

As far as that goes, it doesn't affect me. I absolutely will NOT pay large amounts of money for another concert in a stadium. The smaller venues are far better. Even so, this is a good step from a company with a pretty lousy reputation

Re:Limited Options

[mcgrew]

Screaming, yelling, cheering, chanting and thousands of people belting out lyrics to the more lively songs is something you can never experience at a bar. That and extreme pyrotechnics.

Personally, I never considered a bunch of screaming idiots to be a draw; I go for the music. As to nothing you can experience in a bar, well, not since Great White. It used to be not too uncommon; there was a band that played regularly at the now-defunct Tiajuana Lounge in Wood River, IL that set off the same giant flashes as you'd see in a big auditorium, and in there the flashes were a hell of a lot brighter and smokier.

A major concert event is an uncommon special occasion.

You've been hyped, and fallen for it. A wedding is an uncommon special occasion. A rock concert is not (unless you're talking about Woodstock 1969).

I've noticed quite a trend of people on Slashdot being anti-money.

Money is just a tool. There's a sentiment against foolish wastefulness and overpricing, and against the worship of money. Only a fool worships a tool. There's also a sentiment against people who exploit the poor. There's sentiment against government welfare for the rich.

The notion that "real fans" are people who have no money and must go to shows only on half price pint night is rather insulting.

The notion that "real fans" are people who have shitloads of money is a lot more insulting. I'm a music lover but I'm neither rich nor poor, and I refuse to pay the insane prices they charge today. Got money? I'm happy for you, but I have enough money for my needs. I find that never ending battle to amass more wealth to be pitiful.

If you don't like your lot in life, change it.

Most people's lot in life is dependant on pure dumb luck. If your mother's a crackwhore who doesn't know who your daddy is, it's damned hard to grow up and not be a loser. Not impossible, but for someone from an upper income family who goes to private school, gets good nutrition and lots of love, it's pretty damned hard not become a winner.

The funniest commercials I ever heard was for Donald Trump's "how to get rich" book. What would someone born into wealth know about getting rich? Even if a rich man has a string of bad luck or stupidity and winds up in bankruptcy court, he still has something the poor will never have -- contacts. Who you know is the most impartant part of success.

An old saying -- "there but for the grace of God go I". I think the sentiment against people like you isn't your money, but your sense of entitlement; you think you're better than anyone else. Like that woman, I forgot her name but went to prison for tax evasion saying "only little people pay taxes". People cheered her incarceration, not because she was a tax evader, not because she was rich, but because she was a worthless cunt with an attitude.

Re:Limited Options

[kjiin]

Orchestra prices for Broadway shows are more like $125 and that doesn't include the "premium" seating which can reach $400. The one thing that I'll give Broadway is that for many shows you can find discounts out there and the student rush tickets.

Re:Limited Options

[h4rr4r]

They could just not use those venues. Hell, they could use smaller venues and charge more for the intimate setting.

Re:Limited Options

[h4rr4r]

That's just the E talking:)

Re:Limited Options

[DavidTC]

They are not obligated to use ticketmaster.

That's actually most of the problem. Ticketmaster is, for some reason, allowed to exclusive rights to many venues, or at least exclusive except for sports, and exclusive rights to many acts.

If you're a ticketmaster venue, you have to use them all acts (Minus some sport exceptions), or they stop letting their acts play at your venue, so you give up 80% of possible acts, including all the big name ones.

If you're an act who wants to play at any large venue, likewise, you have to let ticketmaster handle all your shows, or you can't play at any ticketmaster venue, which are like 80% of the big ones.

And let's not get into the fact that ticketmaster is the same company as clear channel, which determines which bands get played on the radio. There's no explicit statement that not using them won't get you less airtime...but is that really a safe bet to make?

Saying 'they don't have to use Ticketmaster' is stupid. Plenty of people want out of that system, but can't get out. Ask Pearl Jam about that one, and how successful their non-Ticketmaster 1995 tour was.

Ticketmaster should have been charged with antitrust violations by now. I don't understand why they aren't. This is almost exactly how the railroad trusts operated. Exclusivity agreements everywhere.

Re:Limited Options

[jafac]

Nobody's saying you didn't work hard for your money.

If you think you've earned every penny of it; compared to others, it is you who are delusional.

And no, nobody really expects you to do anything about it; give your money to others, tell your boss: "hey pay me half of what you pay me, because it's not fair" - or, anything like that.

Just understand that there are a lot of people in this world who really DO work their asses off with a huge degree of high competence, who earn jack squat, and part of that is due to choice - part of it is due to circumstance of birth, part if it is due to lack of awareness that they even have the option to do anything to earn more, part of it is simple fear to take a risk, (many people aren't as well positioned to recover from a loss if a taken risk doesn't work out, as are others).

I, personally think that some concert tickets are probably way underpriced, for what the market will bear - for certain "acts" that are exposed and promoted and occupy a huge mindshare (blown way out of proportion to actual talent). The mindshare of a big-name band creates an artificial demand, which drives prices way up. The monopoly that the ticket brokers have, also drives prices up, and that needs to end; and ideally, there shouldn't be a resale market that jacks prices up like it does - if the original sale price was correct, the scalpers/brokers wouldn't exist. (so yeah, maybe $500-$1000 for U2 tickets; as hyped/exposed as they are, is probably right - I saw them for $12 in 1984, lol). There's only so many seats, and so many nights they can perform in a tour. There's only one U2. Each "big name" band is a limited commodity. It's a tight supply, that's created by hype.

If you look at smaller acts out there, local bands, you realize that the talent of these big-name acts is not at all extraordinary. Not even close. Yeah, there is a glut of really crappy talentless cover-bands playing bars. But there is also a huge number of unsigned bands out there struggling to make any kind of living at all, in a hyper-consolidated recording industry that builds value by concentrating hype like this.

So - the parent poster's point that, a small-club experience - may be a better value for the dollar, class-warfare issues aside, is an extremely valid one. It's true, that a band that is sitting in a major venue on an international tour, in front of 50,000 people, is going to be of a certain quality; guaranteed. Your small-venue band is going to be hit-or-miss. Your $12 may be well-spent or crap. But then you get to avoid buying-into a monopolized ticket-buying system, and a hype-funneled price-gouging scheme designed to make sure that 300 million Americans have all heard of the same 40 bands, while being smug about the fact that they can afford $100-a-seat tickets. And have *never* heard of literally thousands of other very talented performers.

Re:Limited Options

[Twanfox]

Go the other side of the road. You picked things that ostensibly have the drivers of choice behind them. How about if you choose to have protected sex except that it doesn't prevent you from catching AIDS (manufacturing defect in the latex, for instance)? How about driving to work, the same that you've done every day, and a car comes out from a blind spot and T-bones your car, even though you were following the traffic signals and were not speeding? How about finally falling victim to that genetic disorder you weren't aware of until just last year? Suppose your mother was addicted to crack when you were in vitro and left you with a learning disorder? Tell me where in that situation is the victim supposed to have chosen the better path.

There are some situations that no amount of choosing can get you out of. We hope those situations are few and far between, but they do happen. Had you conceded to even one of those situations and acknowledged that they exist, your argument would carry more weight. As it is, it has left me, at least, wondering if you really believe all that you need to do to better your life is make better choices.

Re:Limited Options

[mattack2]

I pulled my own weight... went to public school... got my own scholarships... and now you want me to pay taxes on the money I earned after growing a hump from studying and working >80 hours a week... to subsidize someone whose sole qualification is "lack of education" because they either didn't work hard or couldn't care any less about doing well in school?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Were any of your scholarships paid for with public money (i.e. MY taxes)?

(BTW, I would actually agree with what you're saying, if none of your scholarships actually came from my tax money..)

Re:Limited Options

[fractoid]

That's what I was thinking - the whole REASON that the tickets are non-transferable is to prevent scalpers from buying huge blocks of tickets and then re-selling them for double or triple the price. The 'grandma problem' that they refer to in TFS is fucking retarded anyway, because this is the internet. All 'grandma' would have to do is enter the grandchild's details and the ticket would be sent to them, at which point they can use it as usual.

Re:Limited Options

[LBt1st]

What's worse is when you find out how much the bands get paid for those overpriced Ticketmaster sales. It's pretty sad. I'd gladly pay if I knew a fair portion of it went to the artists. Since that's not the case I limit my concerts only to the ones you speak of.

Re:Limited Options

[nelsonal]

Kibbutz seem like a pretty good example of free choice communism. Even they have slowly ebbed towards corporations over the last few years (although they did seem to work pretty well for a generation or so).

I think communisum can work, but it's optimum size is vastly smaller than a nation (something more like a village is probably all that can be operated before corruption and self-interested decisions become too costly).

I'd like to see one social democracy survive through a population boom, stabilization, and decline before we call them successes. Thus far the odds look good that their grand experiments will end up transfering wealth from one generation to another.

Re:Limited Options

[TheABomb]

Don't they generally have a printed ticket at the will call window that you still need to get in the door and to your seat? There may be no shipping but there's definitely still paper waste.

Re:Limited Options

[TCPhotography]

Pol Pot tried about as hard as he could to form a communist state. He managed to kill off about a fifth of his nation's people. He's the most damning indictment of Communism there is.

Re:Limited Options

[cmarkn]

How do they cheat? If you claim that they are getting the tickets from the venue, then there must be some procedure in the agreement between the venue and the Ticketmaster that allows this diversion of tickets to employees. That's not cheating, it's built into the rules of the game and neither the band, venue nor Ticketmaster are losing anything. Or do you imagine that security is so lax that the scalpers are stealing tickets? That's a whole different problem.

But nobody seems to be addressing the real issue here: Just exactly who are scalpers harming? The band gets paid the amount they contracted for, as do the venue and Ticketmaster. It's the scalpers take the risk and end up eating unsold tickets. The consumers who buy their tickets from the scalpers are not forced to spend any more money than they are willing to spend for that show. They may piss and moan, but it is they who decide how much their tickets will cost, no one else. That's pretty much the definition of an open market. In stock markets, scalpers are called market makers.

A more perfect method for selling tickets would be for the band to auction off the seats, either individually or in small blocks, on eBay. That way everyone would be able to get as good a ticket as they are willing to pay for and all the money goes directly to the band. Short of that, having scalpers making the ticket market is the best system for consumers and bands - the middleman, Ticketmaster, only loses opportunity because they collect every cent of the price they set.

And here's another rule that NBA teams have figured out but not musicians - if you sell out a show, you aren't charging enough for the tickets.

Re:Limited Options

[cmarkn]

Communism doesn't even work at a village level. It breaks down as soon as it reaches the limit of a resource, and all resources are limited. Someone has to allocate that resource. Under capitalism, the most productive user would, ie, the user that creates the most value, would be able to pay more for their need than less productive users. Thus you have a system that produces the most wealth possible with the resources available to the village. Under communism, the user with the most political clout would get decide who uses the resources regardless of productivity. Thus you have a less productive, less wealthy and more slowly advancing society. And that's before the inevitable corruption of the communist committee. And it gets even worse when the common ownership of the resource inevitably leads to the Tragedy of the commons..

Communism is a bad system and cannot succeed at any level. It isn't even internally consistent.

Re:Limited Options

[toporok]

It's called an "Convenience Fee".

Re:Limited Options

[JustABlitheringIdiot]

What is the impetus from the point of view of the owners of the organization, managers of the band or venue to lower the prices if they're selling out all the seats?

Firstly, I believe that it should not be only about the money. But since it is for many lets look at the secondary goods market. It is fed by the fans and if you alienate them you (with impossibly high costs to follow them) you reduce your possible income from other non-ticket sales. Somebody has to have a reason to buy hats, T-Shirts, cups, mugs, bags, CD's, etc.

If we take your example of cutting prices from $60 to $30 and we estimate that now twice as many people can go to the event and gain an appreciation for the team/band/etc. now there are twice as many people to buy all the pointless crap they sell and you've made it easier to purchase b/c they have more money left in their pockets. So there is no net loss and in fact there is probably a net gain. If you enjoyed your experience you are more likely to spread the word or give merchandise as a gift thereby exposing an even greater number of potential customers.

Going back to the idea of it not being about money just think about this; what happened to it being about the love of what you do/provide? There was once a time where bands made music because they wanted to and sports owners bought teams because they loved the sport and wanted to share that love with others. *steps on soapbox* When was the last time you did something with the expectation of nothing but a thank you in return? I spent last night trying to save somebody whom I've never met house from burning down all I got in return was a thank you and a lack of sleep. I've been doing that for 10 years and I'm no wealthier for it. Have you ever contributed to open source or something else in anyway? Doesn't it feel good to share something you are passionate about because you can and not because it makes you wealthy? *steps off soapbox*

Re:Limited Options

[Minion of Eris]

Not defending Pol Pot. He was trying to return Cambodia to an agrarian based economy, and was a brutal (maybe psychotic) dictator. This really doesn't have anything to do with the basic tenent of "From each according to their ability, to each occording to their need." If you study scripture at all, JC was pretty close to a Commie. Definitely a Socialist.

Re:Limited Options

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there isn't a level playing field, it's easier for a millionaire to earn her second million than for a debt-saddled minimum-wage worker to earn his first. But if the minimum wage worker wants to take night classes, apply for student loans or grants (hopefully in a program that there is a job market for), take some other type of vocational training, or start a side business he is passionate about, it is definitely possible for him to improve his lot in life.

But that requires more discipline than coming home after a hard days work feeling like you just got screwed by "the man" AGAIN, cracking a beer, popping supper in the microwave for the family and veging out to tv shows that show people with nicer things than you have, interspersed with ads showing people better looking than you having more fun than you.

Re:Limited Options

[DavidTC]

all resources are limited.

Wrong. Air, for example, is functionally not limited, and we've operated with air in a communist faction for the entirety of human history.

Same with public walkways. The state owns the sidewalk, and everyone uses it, because almost no one needs more sidewalk than can easily be accessed. (And when they do, we have permits and whatnot that work fine.)

Under capitalism, the most productive user would, ie, the user that creates the most value, would be able to pay more for their need than less productive users.

You've confused about three different things here. But the most important is that in a free market the people generating the most wealth do not have the most power.

The people with the most money have the most power. Plenty of things can move money, in large amounts, to people, without generating any wealth at all. Ask the people on Wall Street about that one.

Under communism, the user with the most political clout would get decide who uses the resources regardless of productivity.

Uh-huh, and under a free market system, the user with the most economic clout gets to decide who uses the resources regardless of productivity.

You're trying to claim the alternative to communism is some sort of economic meritocracy, and that doesn't even exist as a hypothetical economic system, much less an actual one.

And it gets even worse when the common ownership of the resource inevitably leads to the Tragedy of the commons.

All economic systems with the concept of a commons can fall victim to the tragedy of the commons, and all economic systems that have ever existed have had commons. It would be damn hard to operate a free market if there wasn't some way for people to actually move around to exchange goods, for example.

You're trying to assert that communism has more 'commons' than other forms of economic systems, but this isn't actually true, nor is there any particular reason why it should be.

And, if anything, communism is less suspect to tragedy of the commons because, as, with most property use directed by the state, they really don't have a problem with controlling 'public property', whereas there is resistance to that in a free market. And, in a free market, tragedy of the commons happens when people attempt to use public property to produce wealth for personal gain, a concept that makes less sense under communism.

Thus you have a less productive, less wealthy and more slowly advancing society.

The fact communism is less productive and less wealth generating (Which does not make it 'less wealthy'.) does not back up your argument, which is a claim it 'doesn't work'. An incandescent light-bulb is less productive at generating light than a halogen light, but it does, indeed, work.

And you're asserting that the only judge of a society is how 'productive' it is, which is a bit silly. Most people would place 'stability' before productivity, for a random example.

And that's before the inevitable corruption of the communist committee.

All governments inevitable corrupt. Communism just appears more susceptible to it, although, as I pointed out, all current and recent-past communism government has been the result of military revolution/coups, which are not historically that stable anyway.

Fast changes in government, new forms of government, result in corruption, and people seizing too much power, simply because no one understands how to stop it.

While I don't think communism is a very useful form of government, I was simply pointing out that dismissing it because it hadn't worked yet is akin to dismissing non-monarchical western democracy because it didn't have a good track record in 1865...England's civil war had failed 200 years ago, the US was in a war with itself too, and France had had about three wars flipping back and forth to monarchy. Nowadays, no one sees anything odd about it, but back then, it was hi

Re:Limited Options

[nelsonal]

I understand your point, and yes, capitalism is an exceedingly efficient allocation of resources, but to say that Communism can't work at even the smallest levels is easily disproven by the collectivism of many families.

Allocating a commons can be done in many ways, ownership isn't the only one that can improve results. Swiss meadows are normally the object lesson used by economists, but there are other agreements that aren't capitalist in nature that work.

Collectivism works when one's ties to the community outweigh their self interest, that normally happens only in exctended families, or in religious groups. Kibbutz were very successful and very communistic (children were raised in groups, and the clothes on your back were owned in common), but only as long as everyone in the group agreed the success of the group was preferrable to the success of the individual. It helped that they were surrounded by generally hostile people, which made individual prospects pretty dire.

Re:Limited Options

[yurbud]

Oh no! I "happen" to have a lot of money! What can I do?
I know, I will go to a concert I don't care about!
I sure hope the sound is crappy, since I won't be at all interested in the music!

I sure hope all the "real" music fans are at home. I wouldn't want to sit next to a poor person.

And those lucky promoters! Did you know that the more they charge, the more people that "happen" to have money go to the show?
Supply and demand doesn't apply to concerts. That is so cool!

If they raise the price enough, maybe I can go broke and become a "real" fan. That would be so awesome.

Re:Limited Options

[Blkdeath]

Personally, I never considered a bunch of screaming idiots to be a draw; I go for the music.

As do I. Likewise when I visit the Air Canada Centre I go for the hockey, but the cheering crowd is a large factor in the experience.

You've been hyped, and fallen for it. A wedding is an uncommon special occasion. A rock concert is not (unless you're talking about Woodstock 1969).

Sure, but Woodstock was a festival, not a concert. :)

In my experience, especially in the summer time, weddings are far from rare, special occasions. I've been to more weddings in my life than concerts and I find them deplorable, boring and usually quite offensive. It all comes down to one's perspective, but I digress. A large venue event that often requires plans to coordinate and is looked forward to for some time is a special event. Going to a baseball game with my dad for the first time in over a decade was a special event and we were in cheap seats.

Money is just a tool. There's a sentiment against foolish wastefulness and overpricing, and against the worship of money. Only a fool worships a tool. There's also a sentiment against people who exploit the poor. There's sentiment against government welfare for the rich.

Absolutely and I couldn't agree more. However what I was referring to were the folks who get agitated when any hint comes out that another poster or an article submitter lives at a level higher than subsistence. Even when an article comes out about some new electronic gadget I see people ranting about the "rich yuppie idiots" who have the ability to go out and buy them, etc.

The notion that "real fans" are people who have shitloads of money is a lot more insulting.

The only people who've implied that thus far are the very same people demonstrating the anti-money sentiment I spoke about.

In another post I'd discussed the notion that when something is a priority in one's life, they will find a way to acheive it. Many people in the stands at concerts are brick layers, sandwich makers, wait staff, ditch diggers, etc. They're not all stock brokers and tycoons.

I think the sentiment against people like you isn't your money, but your sense of entitlement; you think you're better than anyone else.

Firstly, I don't like to think of myself as a "person" of any particular type. Moreover, there is no sense of entitlement here. Am I proud of what I've accomplished in my years in the work force? Absolutely. Would I ever lord it over someone? Absolutely not. Do I think I'm better than anyone because of my economic position in society? Of course not. Now, that's not to say there aren't types of people out there I look down on, but those are for reasons that have nothing to do with money.

What I do see quite often however is people who cast a sense of entitlement on people with money around them. I've actually witnessed a young(ish) gentleman utter something along the lines of "*&^@# rich asshole" as hey keyed a Jaguar parked in a parking lot, doing nothing but occupying one of many available spaces. That's the kind of sentiment I see portrayed here on Slashdot all too often lately that I'm talking about.

Re:Limited Options

[Dishevel]

It's "market value" in the sense that if they charge too much, people won't buy them I suppose

Thats not "market value" in a sense. It IS market value.

Re:Limited Options

[torsmo]

Isn't Ticketmaster now Live Nation?

Re:Limited Options

[mcgrew]

weddings are far from rare, special occasions. I've been to more weddings in my life than concerts

That band is going to have a lot of concerts, that couple will only have one wedding. A wddieng is a life changing experience for the bride and groom, and if a concert changes your life you've got some heavy drugs. Weddings are special, concerts are not (except om the rare occasion like the baseball game you referred to).

when something is a priority in one's life, they will find a way to acheive it.

In most cases, yes. I could scrape up $200 for a Rolling Stines ticket, but I have far better things to spend (or even waste, like beer and women) my money on.

Moreover, there is no sense of entitlement here.

I'm glad to hear that, but there are a whole lot of people who do have that sense of entitlement.

I've actually witnessed a young(ish) gentleman utter something along the lines of "*&^@# rich asshole" as hey keyed a Jaguar parked in a parking lot

I've seen that assholery too, and I agree, it's abominable. I don't know where that attitude would come from, except envy.

Though shit

[QaDN]

It is good that something is being done about the reselling of tickets with a high markup.
This has been a bane of musicians and concert-venues for a long time now.

On the other hand I don't think this is the way to go.
Tickets _should_ be transferable.

The way the Dutch government dealt with this is better in my opinion. It is now illegal over here to resell tickets with a markup higher than X% (I forget how much percent, I think 40).

Re:Though shit

[jgardia]

or at least you should be able to return it, and get your money back.

Re:Though shit

[QaDN]

Wait, you can't return your tickets over there?

Re:Though shit

[ntdesign]

If you don't like high resale prices, buy your tickets early at retail, or don't buy them at all. Clearly some tickets are worth X% markup to some people.

Re:Though shit

[betterunixthanunix]

"Non-refundable" seems to be printed on the ticket stubs I have lying around.

Re:Though shit

[aleph42]

It is good that something is being done about the reselling of tickets with a high markup.

I guess you would also agree to ban price increase for plane reservations at the last minute?

Companies do not disagree with selling the maximum each buyer will bear (instead of the minimum that N persons will bear, if you want to fill a N seat concert hall, which is the current case assuming identical seats). They just disagree with others making that money. This is all a matter of control, as is everything about DRM (that is to say, contracts). We had a market where a huge quantity of goods were sold with standardised contracts: buying an apple, a car or a concert ticket meant roughly the same (implicit, law defined) contract for the buyer. Standardisation meant it was easy to negotiate good deal on that single contract. Now this is being eroded more and more.

Re:Though shit

[Bigbutt]

Oh let's see. When I try to buy tickets as soon as the website "opens" it's virtually impossible. If I do happen to get in, the ticket is in the nosebleed section. Yet scalpers seem to have boatloads of primo seats for sale at some outrageous markup.

The way I fixed it is that I don't go to big name concerts much and will hit the local clubs instead where I don't have to worry so much about some scumbag asswipe with a big pipe slurping up all the great seats.

[John]

Re:Though shit

[CastrTroy]

Making it illegal still won't make it not happen. It's too easy for a ticket and the money to change hands, without anybody knowing it happened. The same reason you can't control scalpers is the same reason you can't control drugs. People are willing to pay high prices, and the product is too hard to track. I think most places have laws against scalping. It still happens.

Re:Though shit

[Pingmaster]

A law is different than active countermeasures. You can outright ignore a law (provided you don't get caught first), you need to do something about countermeasures. In this case, you'd need an ID ant matching credit card, which was used to originally purchase the pass, to get in. Aside from the scalper hacking the database to insert your creds (meaning you'd have to provide your credit card info to a scalper), or scalpers creating a fake ID (with credit card) for each person buying the ticket (very time consuming), this can be a pretty effective way of preventing resale and transfer of tickets.

That being said, if TicketMaster can overcome the 'grandma problem' by making some sort of limited transferability/gifting option, I actually somewhat like the 'no ticket' thing. it's one less thing for me to have to remember, since I always carry my credit card and driver's license with me. Maybe they can put in a gift option when purchasing, you enter the actual ticket holder's name and address, they get an email to a ticket they can either print, or pre-register online to not use a ticket. then they just show up with their ID and they're good to go. Once again, that will limit scalping since it is a) time consuming to transfer each ticket to the buyer and b) has to be done at the time of purchase, preventing people buying in bulk and selling later.

Or, they could just go back to using paper tickets and just accept the scalpers for what they are.

Re:Though shit

[hedwards]

It's been a problem for years where there'd be large numbers of tickets which weren't available to the general public to buy because they'd been in effect sold prior to the tickets going on sale.

Re:Though shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Tickster system:
1.) Buy barcode at face value, barcode is needed to get in

2.) Buy barcode at face value, decide that you don't want to go, resell ticket via Ticksters auctionsite (where they can set a maximum price if they want to), barcode is destroyed, new barcode sent to buyer.

Re:Though shit

[Winckle]

Wow, the consumer protection laws in your country fucking suck.

Re:Though shit

[ukdmbfan]

I've always thought that this was weird, that you're there online as soon as tickets go on sale and it's impossible to get through and when you do you manage to get through you get a few crappy seats. And yet touts somehow are getting hold of loads of tickets, as if they've got peering with Ticketmaster's server and access half an hour beforehand or something equally as ridiculous.

I asked someone "in the know" about this one time, and they said the majority of scalpers and touts get hold of a large number of good seats easily by either going to or knowing someone at the venue box office.

Personally I've not had a problem with the few gigs I've been to where I've had to provide ID instead of a ticket, namely the recent free RATM gig in London, but then I make a habit of just getting a few tickets (or just one) for gigs and always tend to go as I only ever book for stuff I'm really interested in seeing, and if I can't go or have a spare ticket I'm usually going as well, or I'll just take the hit. Best thing would be to make the tickets transferrable still, but make it a lot of effort - you have to phone up, give the credit card details for the new person, make it take a few minutes etc. That way, touts would think twice about selling on a large number of tickets given the time investment required, and it would completely eliminate ticket buying/selling outside venues on the date of the gig.

Re:Though shit

[nosferatu1001]

That would fall foul of a number of UK laws...

Re:Though shit

[BasilBrush]

One of the problems with your argument is that scalpers are indistinguishable from forgers. It's bad enough to pay over face value for a ticket, it's worse to then get refused admission because you've been sold a fake. It's far better that all tickets are sold from official box offices.

Re:Though shit

[BasilBrush]

A law which is policed could make scalpers selling tickets outside a venue impossible. If the scalper risks a night in jail, then all the tickets he has in his possession at the time of the arrest would be unsold, and he'd lose his investment on them. That changes the economics a lot.

Of course selling ahead of time over the internet is harder to police, but without the assurance that any unsold tickets on the day of the concert could be hawked outside the venue, again it becomes a riskier occupation.

Re:Though shit

[aleph42]

If you bring in a completely different point, which does not generalize to other situations (except if you think that companies should generally have total control over individuals, since they are always more honnest than them), and my argument does not address it, then it is not a problem with my argument.

First Sale

[Gothmolly]

If I buy something, I own it. Period. If you want to diddle around and chip away at what you will let me buy, then I will buy from someone else, or not at all. Now please DIAF, ??AA.

Re:First Sale

[CastrTroy]

The main question here is, are you actually buying anything, or are you just paying for a reservation, for you personally to sit in a specific seat. If airplane tickets have gone this long being non-transferable, then I'm sure that concert tickets could do the same. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, but if you don't like the terms and conditions, don't get the tickets.

Re:First Sale

[jamesh]

If I buy something, I own it. Period. If you want to diddle around and chip away at what you will let me buy, then I will buy from someone else, or not at all.

Fail. You have in your possession a document that will let 'Gothmolly' into an event. You can sell it to someone else (as is your first sale right) but what good to someone else is a document that will let 'Gothmolly' into an event?

The big problem (in Australia at least, but I assume it happens everywhere) is that there are only a limited number of tickets to any concert/festival, and people with the means to get in first are buying up big and then reselling the tickets at ridiculous prices without adding any value at all. Laws have been introduced to try and stop it but they're hard to enforce. So the system was broken, and what do you do with a broken system? (rhetorical question). If you can suggest a better fix then I'm sure the world would be happy to hear it.

The only thing that would bug me is refunds. If they don't give me a refund to a high demand event with reasonable notice (eg enough that they can resell the ticket themselves) then they suck, but otherwise, that's life. Someone else doesn't owe me anything just because I got sick or my grandma died and now I can't go to the concert/festival. These things happen.

Re:First Sale

[bsDaemon]

I think the better question is, who the hell cares who sits in the seat so long as the ticket company and entertainment-industrial complex get the money they were charging for the ticket? If I buy a ticket, end up not being able to go, and can't return it but have a friend who will buy it, what does it matter if I sell it at a loss or a profit, or if I give it away? Ticketmaster isn't "out" any more money than they actually knew they were going to get. They just think they might be able to get a lot more from desperate people. They're kind of like the fat chicks of the economy.

Re:First Sale

[CastrTroy]

I'll tell you who cares. The fans who can't get a ticket unless they pay 10 times the original price because all the tickets were bought up by scalpers 45 seconds after they went on sale. In this case, Ticketmaster is actually trying to do something that's good for the people who want to see the show, and isn't good for the people who just want to resell their tickets. Now, there are some downsides, especially for those who wanted to see the show, but something happened, and now they can't see it, and they can't resell the tickets. Which group of people do you think is larger? Maybe Ticketmaster thinks it is better to help the larger number of people who want to see the show see it for the real price, than to worry about the much smaller percentage of people who can't resell their tickets. Maybe they will get that part figured out as well, and nobody will have any reason to complain.

Re:First Sale

[EastCoastSurfer]

If tickets are gone in 45 seconds I can tell you that the tickets were very under priced to begin with and there are still going to be a ton of people who can't see the show. What you have now is at least an option to see the show at 10x the price if you missed the ticket click lottery.

Ticketmaster isn't doing anything good for anyone. What Ticketmaster and the venue would like (and they are experimenting with) is a dutch auction style system where all tickets are bid for. This will raise the price of tickets for everyone to a market clearing price which will likely end up close to the scalper price except Ticketmaster and the venue will get the money instead of the scalper. Oh, and people will have less options of buying tickets last minute or selling the ticket the purchased.

Re:First Sale

[arndawg]

Yup. But being able to virtually transfer tickets would solve all problems. The black market would not work and we can still buy tickets as presents to friends, or sell them over the internet (in a small scale) if something else came up that stops you from going to the concert.

Re:First Sale

[EastCoastSurfer]

The problem is that there really isn't anything to fix. If you want to 'fix' people buying tickets and selling them at a higher price, then start them at a higher price to begin with. If there wasn't a market for the higher price tickets then the whole situation would go away.

Re:First Sale

[CastrTroy]

I think what really solves the problem is stopping people from acquiring large numbers of tickets. If your tickets are transferable, then you can still scalp them. If you can't get a large number of tickets in the first place, then scalping becomes much less profitable. Even if you could sell them for 10 times the original price, if you could only get 5 tickets, then the most scalpers wouldn't be able to treat it as a business.

Re:First Sale

[BasilBrush]

The thing you own is the ticket. That ticket may grant you access to a venue on a particular night, or it may not. It depends what it says on the ticket. If there's a name on the ticket and it's not you, then you can indeed keep the ticket you bought second hand, but you have no right of entry to the venue.

Re:First Sale

[BasilBrush]

If I buy a ticket, end up not being able to go, and can't return it but have a friend who will buy it, what does it matter if I sell it at a loss or a profit, or if I give it away? Ticketmaster isn't "out" any more money than they actually knew they were going to get.

No one is against the situation you describe. That isn't the problem. The problem is scalpers. If you can find a way to prevent scalping whilst allowing what you describe, then you'll find everyone in favour. But it's a tricky to distinguish one from the other.

Re:First Sale

[BasilBrush]

If tickets are gone in 45 seconds I can tell you that the tickets were very under priced to begin with

That isn't a logical conclusion. If a scalper can be pretty sure that he can average just $1 profit (after expenses) on every ticket he can buy, then it makes sense for him to buy as many tickets as he can. He can write a script that will keep buying for as long as there are tickets available. Lots of scalpers doing the same thing no doubt explains why tickets can be sold out in 45 seconds.

Being sold out quickly only implies that the tickets were underpriced. Not that they were "very under priced".

Re:First Sale

[BasilBrush]

That's not enough. Wimbledon for example prevent people from buying more than two tickets. But there are still scalpers in operation. They put adverts in the classified adds to buy Wimbledon tickets at something above face value. Then they re-sell them for a much greater price outside the venue.

(At least that was the case, going back a few years, I'm not sure what they do now.)

Re:First Sale

[BasilBrush]

Its not as simplistic as that. Concert promoters and scalpers do not have the same business model.

Concert promoters make a huge investment on staging a concert. They need to create a scenario where they will sell all tickets, and the price per ticket will add up enough to enough to pay for the cost of the concert plus a profit. They need to set the prices of tickets months in advance, at a level that is sure to sell out.

Note: Promoters need a sell out so as not to devalue the status of the band.
Note: Promoters can't lower the price of tickets later if ticket sales are not going well as it will devalue the status of the band.
Note: Promoters may need ticket sales months in advance in order to supply the cash flow to finance the concert.

Scalpers have a different risk profile. They sell a limited number of tickets for many concerts, rather than all the tickets for a few concerts. They can afford to lose out on a concert, so long as they make profits on other concerts. They can take as little or as much risk on any concert as they like simply by simply deciding how many tickets to buy.

Scalpers don't care about the future status of the band. They don't at any time need to fix the price of tickets. If there is a lot of demand for tickets, they can raise the price instantly. If ticket sales are not doing well they can lower the price. If they are left with too many unsold tickets on the day of the concert they can even sell them for below the face value and take the loss.

Re:First Sale

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to this is rather simple - auction off the tickets by row/section (or with a selection window/ordering) with winners paying the price of the highest bidder not to win. For example at a 4 seat section at theater, Adam, Betty, Chris, Dan, Erica, and Fred bid $100, $90, $80, $200, $40, $60 respectively. All are charged $60 for that section. There is no interested party willing to pay more and therefore no (profitable) market for scalpers. At a guess, you'd pick price points for different areas the same way venues do now and allow those bidding to give different bids on each section or decline if they are not satisfied with the section they win. The main reason for lowest non winner is that it encourages accurate bids of what the concert is worth to the bidder rather than having them try to guess how little they can win it for.

Re:First Sale

[Asic Eng]

Well if they really care about the fans (let's assume they do, for the sake of this argument) then they could provide an option where the fans can return the tickets to Ticketmaster in case they can't make it to the show for some reason. They could hold on to the money till after the show, and either refund fully (if all tickets were sold) or deduct a reasonable fee. As for the grandma problem - perhaps that could be taken care of by selling gift cards.

Re:First Sale

[bnenning]

In other words, scalpers provide a functioning price system and accurately match supply to demand. And you want to throw them in jail for that?

Re:First Sale

[BasilBrush]

When you say "functioning price model", you mean taking the tickets from the box office that otherwise would be purchased by music lovers. Then selling them back to said music lovers for a price which is usually significantly higher than the face value. Yes, I'd throw the blood sucking leeches in jail.

Re:First Sale

[Mitreya]

If I buy something, I own it. Period. If you want to diddle around and chip away at what you will let me buy, then I will buy from someone else, or not at all.

So... can you re-sell your airline ticket?

Re:First Sale

[Mitreya]

In this case, Ticketmaster is actually trying to do something that's good for the people who want to see the show, and isn't good for the people who just want to resell their tickets.

Hahahahhahhahahaha. Are you *that* naive? :) Ticketmaster is openly saying that they plan to offer their own re-seller website services, charging 20% fees. They just wante to collect more fees. This just means you'll be paying scalpers 5x-10x ticket prices AND 20% on top to ticketmaster when this goes into effect.

Re:First Sale

[Kaz Kylheku]

"'ll tell you who cares. The fans who can't get a ticket unless they pay 10 times the original price because all the tickets were bought up by scalpers 45 seconds after they went on sale."

You don't seem to understand this free market thing. See if these scalpers buy these tickets, they are taking on a risk. Once the event is over, those tickets become garbage. So the scalpers are motivated to get rid of all their tickets (or at least get rid of enough tickets so that they make a profit). If the show is about to start, you have a lot of bargaining power against the scalper. If you walk away, then he's stuck with a worthless piece of paper; he will think twice before demanding 10X the original price! Scalpers sometimes ditch tickets for less than what they paid, because it's better than nothing.

If people are in fact willing to pay 10 times the original price, then it means that the tickets were underpriced with regard to their true market value.

Lastly consider that if a show is sold out, the re-selling of tickets is prohibited, and everyone obeys the rules, then you cannot get a seat at ANY price whatsoever!

Re:First Sale

[HungryHobo]

Right.
It's nice how you showed that scalpers help the band since "Promoters may need ticket sales months in advance in order to supply the cash flow to finance the concert" and by buying up tickets early they provide that early cash flow which otherwise the promoters would not have had at that stage.
They also stabalize the income of promoters since they increase the sales of tickets to less popular concerts and since they want to sell the tickets they've bought for unpopular shows also have an interest in increasing the demand so that they can sell what they've bought.

Re:First Sale

[JohhnyTHM]

Maybe they will get that part figured out as well, and nobody will have any reason to complain.

Thats pretty easy to fix. Just allow refunds on unused tickets. Life stops you doing things sometimes, cant be helped. If someone tries to get refunds on 300 tickets however, they are scalpers and get told where to go.

Re:First Sale

[JohhnyTHM]

Limiting tickets per person doesn't work. My friend went to buy tickets for himself, his wife and their two children. Limit was two per person. Luckily his brother was with him and had his credit card on his so they got two each.
Scalpers get hundreds of tickets. Many of these are corporate tickets that get sold off as the businesses only use a few of their allocation each year, the rest are sold off. Make businesses return unused tickets for public sale rather than selling them off to scalpers.

So?

[Luthair]

Grandma can send a cheque to the parents. As for everyone else trying to sell tickets, they're scalpers and who cares what they think?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what they want you to think. Put down the koolaid and step away from the keyboard.

Re:So?

[laejoh]

I insist on naming my future grandchild 'little bobby tables'!

Re:So?

[ArsenneLupin]

As for everyone else trying to sell tickets, they're scalpers and who cares what they think?

What about groups of friends going to a concert, but one of them buying the tickets for all, in order to make sure to get seats together?

Re:So?

[thegrassyknowl]

I care; I really care. If I buy tickets for a show well in the future and plans change I want to be able to give the ticket to friends or sell it.

Conversely, I don't want to have to pay some ruthless ticketing company some percentage of the sale if I buy a ticket off someone who can no longer go to the show. The original purchaser paid what the promoter deemed the fair price, I'll pay roughly that. Why should they get more than they were prepared to accept initially when they aren't giving any more in return? I guarantee that getting some cut of the secondary sales won't make them put on a better show - it'll just put more money in some ticketing company's bank account.

Re:So?

[jonbryce]

That works because one of the friends will have a credit card with an "admit 4" ticket associated with it.

Re:So?

[ArsenneLupin]

Interestingly, many ticket places don't do this.

For example with ticketpod.nl, if you order 4 tickets, you get 4 separate tickets, each with its own bar-code, rather than one master ticket with a count.

Re:So?

[TreyGeek]

I encountered a problem related to this recently. Back in Februrary I purchased tickets to see a special screening of Weird Al's movie "UHF". Between the time I purchased the tickets and the time I picked them up at WillCall, my bank had canceled the card I used and issued a due one due to a possible security breach. The conditions of being able to pick up my ticket was to have the credit card that I used for the purchase; that was no longer possible. (I also didn't realize there was this condition and failed to save the old CC to use as proof).

Thankfully the girl at WillCall didn't ask to see my CC and I got my tickets. But there are little things like this that could prove troublesome.

My heart cries for the scalpers

[CyberSnyder]

No, not really.

Re:My heart cries for the scalpers

[Eponymous Coward]

As much as I hate scalpers, I hate Ticketmaster 10x more.

Re:My heart cries for the scalpers

[CraftyJack]

Geez, show some sensitivity. It's not scalpers, it's "National Association of Ticket Brokers".

Re:My heart cries for the scalpers

[seanonymous]

When are those Earth, Wind and Fire tickets comin' in?

They'd hate that

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the ability to transfer virtual tickets, brokers and dealers fear being run out of business...

Because Ticketmaster would really hate for that to happen...

An apt choice of words...

[Von Helmet]

Ticket issuers Ticketmaster and Veritix tout paperless tickets as a way to eliminate worries about lost, stolen, or counterfeit tickets, and to banish long will-call lines.

Note for the British English impaired - a tout is what you on the other side of the pond call a scalper.

Re:An apt choice of words...

[JustOK]

uh, no.

Re:An apt choice of words...

[Mr_Silver]

Note for the British English impaired - a tout is what you on the other side of the pond call a scalper.

True, but in the context you quote it actually means "to promote or praise energetically".

</pedantic>

Re:An apt choice of words...

[Von Helmet]

True, but in the context you quote it actually means "to promote or praise energetically".

No shit, I never knew that.

Note for the British English impaired - the above is sarcasm.

Re:An apt choice of words...

[Corporate Drone]

Ticket issuers Ticketmaster and Veritix tout paperless tickets as a way to eliminate worries about lost, stolen, or counterfeit tickets, and to banish long will-call lines.

Note for the British English impaired - a tout is what you on the other side of the pond call a scalper.

Soooo... "Ticketmaster scalps paperless tickets"? Umm... ever hear of a thing called "context"? It's what helps a person decide between various meanings of a word. (Which, in this case, means "promote" or "recommend"...) ;^)

Re:An apt choice of words...

[elrous0]

No, they're called "wankers."

Re:An apt choice of words...

[Inda]

Is it really?

Re:An apt choice of words...

[xaxa]

The point was that to British ears it sounds like "scalps", since the context is concert tickets.

OED "Tout: attempt to sell (something), typically by a direct or persistent approach". Culturally, we're a bit uncomfortable about money, so touting (in all contexts) is slightly negative.

Re:An apt choice of words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, see, it was a pun that you could only understand by knowing the british meaning of "tout". Puns are already the lowest form of humour, puns that require knowledge of foreign double-entendre's are beyond the pale.

Re:An apt choice of words...

[Corporate Drone]

The point was that to British ears it sounds like "scalps", since the context is concert tickets.

Although I'll give you that "touts" sounds like "scalps" to folks who don't speak proper American English... ;^)

... context has nothing to do with it, since that parsing is ludicrous -- the folks who are attempting to eliminate scalping are scalping?!?!?

Had this problem myself

[commodore64_love]

Bought tickets to see the show in Seattle and Portland back in March but then got laid-off in April, and sent back home ~2000 miles away. I couldn't sell the tickets on ebay because they were tied to me (had to show ID and credit card to gain entrance). And I couldn't get a refund either.

So basically I got screwed. I ended-up flying across the country rather than waste the tickets. Like downloading games, it takes away your right to resell the used product to someone else

Re:Had this problem myself

[CastrTroy]

Seriously, when I started reading I thought the "Grandma Problem" was going to be, "My grandma died and I can't go to the concert". I think that what really has to change here is to make it so that scalpers can't get a large number of tickets. I'm not sure of the exact mechanism which could accomplish this, but it would solve most of the problems. Since all sales are made online, they could track things such as IP address, credit card numbers, shipping address, captchas and many other things to figure out if somebody is buying too many tickets, or using a computer to buy a lot of tickets. Probably not fool proof, but if they make it hard enough, it could really cut down on scalpers.

Re:Had this problem myself

[rwv]

I think it'd be fairly simple for them to implement a system that can give you a partial refund and cancel your e-ticket (so that it won't work *if* you still managed to show up for the show).

Heck... it should be fairly trivial for them to track whether they're able to resell your seat and credit you with a full refund.

But why would they ever want to do something fair to customers like that? It's not like there is much fair competition in the event ticket industry.

Re:Had this problem myself

[jandrese]

What I don't understand is: If the tickets are all electronic, then why not allow people to cancel? It's not like they're holding a piece of paper that's going to cause a problem at the door. Maybe have a $10 or $20 cancellation fee to discourage people from doing it unless they really need to, but when you have a $150 ticket that you can't use, then it's alright. Also, make it so you can't cancel less than a day in advance, and put the tickets back on the market a few minutes or hours (randomly) after they've been canceled. Seems like a pretty simple thing to do.

Of course this is Ticketbastard we're talking about, so the idea that they'll implement some sort of customer service seems kinda laughable.

Re:Had this problem myself

[qwijibo]

The solution seems really simple:

For those who want to purchase tickets for N specific people and can provide their names to associate with the tickets, sell them however many tickets they want.

For people who want transferable tickets, limit each purchaser to a reasonable number of transferable tickets, like 5. Ticketmaster would probably make the transferable tickets another $5-10 more each. If you have 30 friends who need tickets, don't have names, and you can't come up with 5 other friends with credit cards to also buy tickets, doom on you.

If you want refundable airline tickets, the prices are higher than the non-refundable ones. There's no reason the same model couldn't be used here to make everyone happy enough.

Re:Had this problem myself

[Anonymous Coward]

You got laid off, and _still_ flew out to see the concert?

I really think you should read this: Sunk cost fallacy

Re:Had this problem myself

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be some percent that you can get as a refund. Full price refunds would be bad because it would allow and encourage people to buy tickets to every show and then return them at the last minute if they didnt feel like going, with no cost.

If you could get 60% or even 80% refunded up to a week or two from the show, I think that would work great for everyone. You get most of your money back, and Ticketmaster (or whoever) can still resell the ticket, probably at inflated rates if the show had otherwise sold out.

Re:Had this problem myself

[Chris Mattern]

What I don't understand is: If the tickets are all electronic, then why not allow people to cancel?

Because then you'd have to give the money back. First Rule of Acquisition, you know.

Re:Had this problem myself

[magarity]

I think that what really has to change here is to make it so that scalpers can't get a large number of tickets. I'm not sure of the exact mechanism which could accomplish this
 
An auction for the tickets. Scalpers are only in business because enough people would be happy to pay X more than the face value. If the prices were run up X due to an auctioning mechanism then who would pay more than the highest bidder when they have a chance to outbid during the auction? Presto, scalpers out of business. The only customers for a high bidding scalper would be the few people who had a cash windfall between the end of the auction and the start of the concert.
 
Something like: seating section A has 50 seats and 100 bids from $20 to $100. Of the top 50 bids, the current low bid is $50 do you want to bid $55? If you bid 55 for 2 tickets then 2 people who bid only 50 get bumped off the bottom. If 50 stays as the lowest bid for section A then everyone pays 50. Auction ends in 2 weeks; if you miss section A the auction for next best seats in section B ends in 2 1/2 weeks.
 
In this scenario, the person who bid 100 will pay 50 but since he got his seat(s), he's just happy to pay less. If anyone really wants to sit in section A then they'll have to bid more than 50. If a scalper wants to gobble up the tickets then he'd have to pay more than the other bidders and then where's his profit? If people were willing to pay more then they'd bid it.

Re:Had this problem myself

[NeMon'ess]

We should be able to transfer tickets with zero markup online. If I want to get rid of my tickets, I'll go to ticketmaster's tickettransfer site and register them as available. My info is kept hidden but the seats are shown. Buyers can select my seats and buy them like regular tickets. They pay what I paid, or that plus a BS $3.50 service fee. This way the venue and ticketmaster don't lose money on refunds. If the concert doesn't sell out that's tough luck for me.

Re:Had this problem myself

[DavidTC]

I think a saner solution is a) allow people to buy tickets in the name of other people, and b) allow people to return tickets minus, say, a two dollar fee, and c) allow people to change the name on their ticket online. (Which let friends transfer tickets, or a club of some sort purchase, say, 30 tickets in advance, and then transfer the tickets to people who want to go, and then return the rest.)

Yes, in theory this allows scalping, but it requires scalpers to log into the system, and actually transfer the tickets.

This almost completely stops street-corner scalping, unless people are walking around with computers, and it makes any large levels of scalping easily detectable.

What would then be interesting is to have a 'scalping fee' that the venue can retroactively apply if you've been scalping tickets, and, when someone buys a large bunch of tickets and transfers them to a bunch of unrelated people, the venue interviews some of those people on the way about how much they paid for their ticket and what their relationship to the seller is and if this is a group of people who show up together or unrelated strangers who bought tickets online. (While making it clear that nothing bad will happen to the ticketholder and they get to see the show if they cooperate.)

Then charge the credit card (Which, after all, they still have) a scalping fee. And not sell to them anymore.

There would probably still be scalping, but it would be in the guise of 'groups' that have to be coached and had to get there near each other, etc. And, of course that doesn't stop them from ratting the scalpers out anyway.

In fact, there you go. Forget having to interview anyone. Everyone, on the way in, gets a form to report that they had to buy their damn ticket from scalpers. Which they will because having to buy marked up tickets from scalpers pisses people off. Enough complaints, and, hey, that guy's credit card number is still on file...

Good luck beating scalpers

[Syberz]

Sure the paperless ticket will beat out scalpers, but it also screws over a bunch of people, not just Grandmas.

Most people, at one point or another, will need to sell or give away a ticket to a show for a bunch of reasons: sickness, gift, won better seats, etc.

With the e-ticket you're stuck. Perhaps offering a way to transfer the ticket (by calling the venue perhaps?) would help the people while still thwarting the mass buying/resale done by scalpers?

Re:Good luck beating scalpers

[kj_kabaje]

Sure they can do that--for a small "servicing" fee, much like professional scalpers. I see how this is so much better.

Re:Good luck beating scalpers

[garcia]

I only resort to TicketBastard as a last resort. I have seen many shows in the last two years and I never had to go through TicketBastard to get my tickets. Yeah, it's a bit of a pain in the ass to have to wait in line at the Will Call line (the last show I went to, at the end of June, the Will Call line was moving faster than the "I already have my TicketBastard ticket" line so YMMV) but at least I don't have to pay their crazy fees and put up with their bullshit.

People, do your homework and see if you can get a ticket from somewhere else. If people would stop patronizing TicketBastard they would eventually go out of business.

Re:Good luck beating scalpers

[hedwards]

Since when have they cared about that sort of collateral damage? Around here the local baseball team had to give up on enforcing the no scalping rule after they got hauled into court for in effect scalping themselves. So now, at least as far as baseball tickets go, they can sell them at face value, but you still have to be careful that the tickets haven't already been used.

Re:Good luck beating scalpers

[Anonymous Coward]

good point. asking ticketmaster to refund you is like asking ebay to refund you for a purchase you made. most of the time the venue will be good enough to accept cancellations.

Re:Good luck beating scalpers

[Mitreya]

Perhaps offering a way to transfer the ticket (by calling the venue perhaps?) would help the people while still thwarting the mass buying/resale done by scalpers?
Perhaps, but you seem to be assuming that the goal is to thwart the scalpers. It isn't. The goal is to take their place - the article mentions that ticketmaster will have their own re-seller website charging 20% for every transaction. I am sure they will expect you to re-sell the ticket in order to transfer it to someone else for a mere 20% fee. Still better than not being able to use it at all, I suppose.

And this is bad, why?

[Jawnn]

Without the ability to transfer virtual tickets, scalpers fear being run out of business...

There. Fixed that for ya'. Ticket scalpers are but one rung above the bottom (undertakers, holding that spot) on the "scummy bottom-feeder" merchant food chain.

Re:And this is bad, why?

[jargonCCNA]

I can think of worse people than undertakers to describe as “scummy bottom-feeders”&hellip personal-injury lawyers who encourage people to sue their own elderly parents, just for one example. Undertakers provide a fairly valuable service—they work with death on a daily basis, so they can help the bereaved through what has to get done. Anyone who encourages someone to sue family for their own carelessness they need to be introduced to the business end of a hot poker.

Re:And this is bad, why?

[AhabTheArab]

Who are you referring to when you say ticket scalpers? The guy selling tickets in the parking lot of a show or Ticketmaster? I've bought tickets from the guy in the parking lot in the past, and I for one am willing to pay a premium for the service he provides. I had a friend that decided to go to the show with our group at the last minute. Ticketmaster was no longer selling any tickets. So I ended up paying in cash $5 above the price printed on the ticket and had a ticket in my hand - ready to walk inside. Cheaper and easier than Ticketmaster's "convenience fee" for the ability to print it at home. Now, I didn't RTFA, but I'd bet they're going to tack on a fee to this paperless ticket (if they haven't already) and tout it as a convenience fee for not having to print it or worry about forgetting it.

Ticketmaster is the real scalper.

Re:And this is bad, why?

[jandrese]

What's with the Undertaker hate? That seems totally random. Sure they're in a grim profession, but most are quite professional.

Another problem for performers

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the advantages of tickets as we are used to them is that if you are not able to make it to the show, you can sell your tickets (or give them away). How is it going to look when venues that are sold out are not full. Will it effect the concert experience for the worse or better? Will people be pissed that they maybe could have gone to the show because there were open seats, but were not allowed to buy the ticket?

Re:Another problem for performers

[grantek]

I don't think the ticket merchants really care if a sold-out event is any good or not.

Re:Another problem for performers

[Roberticus]

I don't think the ticket merchants really care if a sold-out event is any good or not.

Ticketmaster wouldn't care, but the venue that makes its money from drink sales certainly would.

Well

[KarlIsNotMyName]

How about making sure you want the ticket in the first place? If you're not buying tickets solely for the purpose of reselling, I don't see why transfer should be a major issue. Sure, accidents and similar can happen, and you're not able to use the ticket yourself, but that shouldn't be something that happens a lot.

And it must be possible to buy a ticket in someone else's name (to be able to gift them), right?

Re:Well

[betterunixthanunix]

Maybe you are buying the tickets as a gift to a friend. Maybe you were planning to go to the show, but something came up and now you have tickets you cannot use. Maybe your teenage daughter liked the act 6 months ago, but does not like it anymore and does not want to go to the show.

People should be able to transfer any item they purchase. We should not become a society in which everything is rented.

Re:Well

[amaiman]

Nope. From the article: "On its Web site, Ticketmaster tells would-be gift givers to buy paperless tickets 'on the credit card of the person attending the event and [then] reimburse them.'"

Re:Well

[KarlIsNotMyName]

At least that's something competitors should take advantage of. That's too limited.

Re:Well

[GizmoToy]

You speak as if TicketMaster doesn't have the entire ticketing industry locked down. There simply are no competitors. You're stuck.

Re:Well

[BasilBrush]

If they are so bad, how do they keep their monopoly?

Re:Well

[sjames]

It shouldn't be THAT hard for them to put an official procedure into place that allows a ticket to be transferred but makes it impractical to do so on a large scale like the professional corporate scalpers do and also impractical to do while standing at the venue.

Re:Well

[Rallion]

Through the power of their monopoly. Are you really not familiar with this idea? There's a reason that there are antitrust laws.

Re:Well

[tompaulco]

If they are so bad, how do they keep their monopoly?
Well, that's the thing about a monopoly. There is no alternative and so therefore, it doesn't matter how bad you are, they still have to come to you.
The demand curve is not completely inelastic, of course. At some point, there is competition in the form of not going to concerts, and also in the form of going to small venue concerts.

Re:Well

[tompaulco]

"On its Web site, Ticketmaster tells would-be gift givers to buy paperless tickets 'on the credit card of the person attending the event and [then] reimburse them.'"
A brilliant solution, to be sure. Is ticketmaster also willing to extend said credit to the 13 year old that Grandma is trying to buy a ticket for?
Also, does this mean that I can't go buy a ticket for myself and my wife? That now has to be two separate transactions, likely ending up with us in two separate seats?

Re:Well

[amaiman]

You can buy multiple tickets together, but the cardholder must be attending the event. So for a kid, a parent would have to go too, put it on their credit card, and pay for a ticket for themself. And that's why TicketMaster loves it...

Grandma Problem

[maddskillz]

My grandma used to get me really ugly clothes for my birthdays. I don't feel too bad for a kid who can't get a concert ticket anymore

Re:Grandma Problem

[GaryOlson]

Grandpa gave me a pen knife and a green willow branch on my birthday. Showed me how to make a single note flute; and told me to go make my own concert.
Kids these days ....concerts
Get Off My Lawn

Another assocation, another day

[caywen]

The Nation Association of Total Bastards thinks all of this is great.

Looking out for the best

[stovicek]

'An open market is really best for consumers.'

And we've all seen how well corporations care for the good of the consumer.

/sarcasm

No grandma problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

Just offer an option to buy the ticket for another person. This person gains admittance if that person is able to identify itself with the name on the ticket. Should be simple right?

I personally have no problem with reserverations. The same holds true for plane and some highspeed train tickets. I don't see why concerts should be any difference.

Re:No grandma problem here

[Yvan256]

I personally have no problem with reserverations.

Well, I do have a problem with "reserverations". It's not a real word!

The REAL problem....

[Dr_Barnowl]

Is the perception by the concert organisers that there's action out there they ain't getting a piece of.

They can't raise their ticket prices too high, or they won't sell enough to fill their venues, and face protests from their audiences. But they'd dearly love to be able to do what the scalpers do which is create a sub-segment of their audience who pays a greatly increased price for essentially the same service.

The only idea they have so far is that if they drive the scalpers out of business... well, what? If they already set the ticket prices as high as they dare, the only effect they will achieve is to piss off a few rich people who will not get tickets where previously they could.

You could view it as preparation for the next logical step - a Dutch auction. Non-transferable tickets would prevent scalpers from waiting for the latter stages of the auction where the tickets get cheaper to snap up a bargain. The Dutch auction means that all the seats in the house go for exactly the price that the market will bear, so they finally get the action they are craving.

Re:The REAL problem....

[locallyunscene]

I worked for the secondary brokers for two years and the ticket industry has a lot of problems. TicketMaster was a monopoly before they merged with live nation(who had gained a foothold in a lot of Latin-American venues). StubHub is the first large form of trading market for the industry(Still a secondary broker of course) and it gets to hold ~25% of the value of the ticket basically in escrow while a ticket is posted.

Whether secondary brokers should be allowed to operate depends on how much you believe in the current brand of American-Capitalism. If you think that A.) a free market should be able to "find the true price" of the ticket and, as a corollary, B.) that someone willing to pay more for a ticket should be able to get that ticket then you think there should be secondary brokers.

Personally, I think the lottery system of hitting TicketMaster's servers when there is an on sale is preferable over secondary brokers, but I also think if you want to fix the industry you need to open up the primary market and take away the monopoly enjoyed by TicketMaster. A dutch auction would be great for TicketMaster except the crappier shows would sell for a lot less.

Re:The REAL problem....

[GigsVT]

The scalpers are helping them though.

The ticket companies may not be able to fully exploit price discrimination, but the scalper is taking on the risk that he won't be able to sell all the tickets he buys. As an ad-hoc broker, he carries that inventory risk so that the organizers don't have to. It's really not much different from hotels selling reservation blocks to discount sites at very low prices and the discount sites eat the cost if they can't fill them up.

If I were in the concert business, I'd be fighting to make "scalping" legal in every way I could.

Re:The REAL problem....

[EastCoastSurfer]

You are correct. This isn't Ticketmaster fighting scalpers for the good of the people, it's Ticketmaster pissed that they are missing out on the extra some people are willing to pay.

Personally I have no problem with secondary brokers. I don't have the time or patience to win the click lottery and secondary brokers have allowed me to see whatever show/event I have felt like going to. I've actually gotten pretty good at timing for sporting events where I end up paying much less than ticket value since many season ticket holders simply want to sell their unused tickets for something rather than leave them empty.

Re:The REAL problem....

[telso]

Actually, Ticketmaster already has Dutch auctions, or at least a seemingly well-designed variant (price doesn't go down, but you input a secret bid and multiple winners pay the same amount, with higher bids getting better seats in the section you bid on), as an option for a way for the event to sell its tickets (not for resellers). This obviously makes a lot of sense, as everyone can input their intrinsic "value" for how much a ticket is worth and those who value it most will win. Assuming perfect information (everyone knows about the auction when it happens (they can lengthen the time of it being open to make this work decently)) and no one's value changes (which clearly won't happen), you have a perfectly efficient market. Because both those conditions will not met, there will be room for resellers to try to make a profit, but for an event that sells out in the first day Ticketmaster would never be able to get any of the reseller market to begin with, so this is clearly the best way to go for events with much fewer seats than potential buyers.

Another possibility is based on an idea a mathematician friend of mine heard at a conference. The speaker claimed that even with different classes, there is generally no way for airlines to make money if prices are fixed (if you raise the price high enough to break even, the plane won't be full). The solution is to change prices all the time, to get each passenger to pay as close to their intrinsic value as possible. People whose time is valuable will do one search, choose the cheapest flight (or even a more expensive yet more convenient one) and be done with it, while people whose time is less so will search and search, day after day, till they feel that given the inherent variability in the price that they would rather lock in now than risk paying (much) more (an expected value and/or gambling/insurance test). Those who want a guaranteed seat will book at whatever the going rate is, while those who will risk it may wait till the last minute. A Dutch auction would be preferable from the airline's perspective, but with multiple routes and multiple companies, you don't have the monopoly that venues do, making it much harder to do well.

I'm not sure why more venues that already sell tickets through Ticketmaster don't use Dutch auctions (makes sense why non-online sales couldn't do it); my guess is venue promoters don't know about it, or are confused and scared of doing things and making money differently than they've done before (sounds like the RIAA).

Re:The REAL problem....

[Snarfangel]

I wish I had mod points to add a +1 Interesting. Thanks!

Re:The REAL problem....

[sjames]

But the bands won't necessarily appreciate that (and without them there's no tickets to sell). Yes, everyone including the band is there to make money, but if the tickets are priced out of the reach of the band's primary fanbase, they won't HAVE a fanbase for long. Their long-term interests are better served by leaving some money on the table for later as it were.

For them, the scalpers are no better then the people who steal tips off of tables at a restaurant.

Re:The REAL problem....

[Anonymous Coward]

If the concert is August 1, and your auction is open from May 1 to July 1, do I really have to place my bid on May 2 and then wait until July 1 to find out what I'm doing on August 1? And I have to remember to keep money in my account (or budget for the credit card charges) for July 1, when I might be sold the tickets, and not plan to spend that money on anything else?

I need to know if I got the tickets or not!

Re:The REAL problem....

[Anonymous Coward]

You could view it as preparation for the next logical step - a Dutch auction. Non-transferable tickets would prevent scalpers from waiting for the latter stages of the auction where the tickets get cheaper to snap up a bargain. The Dutch auction means that all the seats in the house go for exactly the price that the market will bear, so they finally get the action they are craving.

Madonna and Britney Spears as well as several other performers already use a Dutch auction on Ticketmaster to sell the highest priced seats in the house at ridiculous prices to those who are willing to pay them... but before they did this, floor tickets were regularly going on the second hand market for a 3-4X markup for Madonna concerts.

Re:The REAL problem....

[GigsVT]

That's an interesting dynamic I hadn't thought of.

I guess a band might be able to work out something where they give out tickets with welfare checks if that really is their target demographic.

Re:The REAL problem....

[sjames]

It has nothing to do with welfare checks though. It has to do with college and high school aged fans. That job at McDs won't support concert going at scalper rates, and the better college job still won't pay for tuition and books plus a scalper's rates.

Idiocy

[Midnight's Shadow]

Ok, I admit that I like the idea of screwing over the scalpers and I see a ticket as more of a renting of a seat so not being able to resale it isn't a problem. However the scalper and the Grandmother are the same thing to the ticket seller. What is the difference from a sales point of view of a Grandmother giving a ticket to her grandson for free and a scalper giving a ticket to a customer for twice the price? They are both transferring the ownership of the ticket to someone else.

Yea I know they are two different things but like I said think of it from a sales perspective. Ever solution has its own problems.

Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[hawleyal]

Man, you guys are just too used to Microsoft EULAs.

All this talk of no sympathy for scalpers.

Might as well add used book retailers, music traders, software peddlers, refurbished computer sellers.

Just because it's easy to not like scalpers, you are trying to deny consumer choice.

You're part of the problem, assholes.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

What have scalpers got to do with consumer choice? They are just buying up majority of tickets and marking up the price to 3 to 4 times the price, where is the "choice" in that? No added value, just increased cost due to situation they themselves create by creating an artificial scarcity, if they sell one of out 3 tickets they break even, anything above that they are in profit

Grandma is a straw argument as she can just transfer the money direct to recipient

While there might be some argument for ability to resell tickets (say unable to attend event booked months in advance due to change in circumstances) simple fact is any system that would cater to that would be abused by scalpers, thus outweighing the benefits

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[vegiVamp]

No, not really.

Scalpers sell *unused* tickets that would otherwise be perfectly available to me with no more hassle than buying from them. In other words, they considerably up the price of the goods they're selling, but offer no benefit whatsoever for the extra money - you could even argue that they make things worse for the price.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[hawleyal]

you read it wrong.

scalpers may be assholes.

but they are a necessary evil so we don't lose the freedom of first sale.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[hawleyal]

the benefits of freedom are never outweighed by abusers of the freedom.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

Scalpers (now called "ticket brokers") pay homeless people to stand in line so the minute tickets go on sale they can buy up blocks of hundreds of tickets at a time. Then the concert sells out in 10 minutes, so instead of being able to buy tickets at my leisure and select the seat I want, I have to find a broker, pay 2-3 times the face value of the ticket, and then only be able to select from the seats he has.

Used book/game/music sellers are actually *good* because they provide a secondary market where you can buy things at a much lower price. Nobody's complaining about buying a $50 book for $5. Scalpers, however, are taking over the primary market and charging a much higher price. Nobody wants to pay $500 for a $50 ticket.

The grandma problem can be solved the same way airlines do. Simply allow you to purchase tickets in somebody else's name and give refunds (yes, there still are refundable airline tickets, they're just not the cheap ones) to those who end up with tickets they can't use.

dom

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

These scalpers are not going to the concerts. They are just middle men. This is just like High Frequency Trading on the Stock Market.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not have a problem with scalpers (those they buy small set of tickets from a consumer to sell to another consumer, or consumers selling to each other). What is a problem is the ones that took it up a notch, like TicketsNow did. They went out and bought huge blocks of tickets when the box office opened and then turned around and sold them at inflated prices. This was happening to the Miley Cryus tickets, the teenage crazy just wanted tickets and the parents were forced to pay the blood money. I know this for a fact, I helped to install the phone system they used to do this, quite a few years ago.

Tickets need to be a bearable instrument, he who holds it owns it. But there are also needs to be a way to stop someone from cornering a given event or the market in total.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

The freedom to have a monopoly and artificially inflate costs is not freedom. This is exactly why capitalism does not work without regulation.

Scalpers (and you) are assholes. This is a perfect example of where regulation is desirable. It's also a great example of where the market can self-regulate by selling tickets as restricted reservations, without requiring government to step in at all.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[drew30319]

This is not like "[...] used book retailers, music traders, software peddlers, refurbished computer sellers."

While concert promoters may have some of the same issues with scalpers that a book publisher has with resale of a book at a used book store their distinctions are far far greater than any commonalities:

1) Supply: books, music, software, and hardware are generally all materials that are in (nearly) unlimited supply, the tickets to a concert that has a finite # of seats and a finite # of performances is by-its-nature limited. When there are shortages of new hardware (e.g. game consoles at launch) that is a more apt analogy but again there is an inherent difference in that although production will ramp up and one can eventually buy a Wii, the same is unlikely true of seeing a specific performer in concert in your city or town; the scarcity of supply is what drives the profits of professional "ticket resellers."

2) Value: whereas a book that's already been read could still have the same amount of value to a second purchaser as did the first, the same is obviously not true of a concert ticket purchaser. Sure, somebody might want a used concert ticket to frame and hang on their wall but this is clearly not the same value as the person using the ticket to attend the concert.

The only thing that I imagine a concert promoter and a book publisher would have in common here is a perceived mentality that "nobody should make money off of this but me." Outside of that how in the world does a concert compare to software or a book? In a world of bad Slashdot analogies this may be the worst I've seen that received a +5 "interesting."

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[bnenning]

Scalpers sell *unused* tickets that would otherwise be perfectly available to me

No, they wouldn't. If scalpers can successfully sell their tickets for more than face value, then it means there's lots of demand and they'd sell out quickly at the original price.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[Mitreya]

I do not have a problem with scalpers (those they buy small set of tickets from a consumer to sell to another consumer, or consumers selling to each other). What is a problem is the ones that took it up a notch, like TicketsNow did. They went out and bought huge blocks of tickets

Hahahahahahahahaha. Sorry, what? Consumers selling tickets to each other are NOT scalpers. They are people who want to get rid of extra tickets - they don't even have to sell it for profit... Buying small sets of tickets is pointless - this is not a hobby. In order to be making serious money and cover the risk of losing some of your investment you have to resell a large number of tickets. So scalpers are (almost by definition) people who have a way of buying large blocks of tickets and making serious money. Often enough they have a more direct method of getting that block of tickets (through venue employees)

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

Not entirely the same. This would be the same as used book retailers buying up the (limited amount of) bestsellers and then selling them for an inflated fee in their own store.

Or refurbished computer sellers buying up all the new computers, then selling them for more money as used.

The scalpers work within a limited resource environment, where the primary sales channel has dried up. This is not the case with used books or the other examples you give. The only time you see second hand goods go for inflated prices is when a new gadget is released and the first batch is sold out (Xbox/Playstation/Wii on eBay after their launch)

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[shentino]

Scalpers drive down the supply by hogging all the tickets, then turn around and resell them in a market of scarcity that they themselves caused.

Debeers scalps diamonds, for example.

It's just a small scale version of monopoly.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[vegiVamp]

Ah, I see. Apologies for reading that the wrong way.

Still, I don't fully agree - it's a bit like saying we have to tolerate, say, graffiti on every corner so we don't lose free speech.

What scalpers do is less 'first sale' than is is buying in bulk and selling in portions; except that the thing they're buying in bulk was *already* available in portions. They're not adding any value, they're just leeching - and additionally the activity is illegal in many countries.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[vegiVamp]

This is true. However, they wouldn't sell out quite as fast if scalpers didn't buy them in large quantities.

Without scalpers, it's first come, first served. Not fun, but reasonably fair.

With scalpers, it's money-based; and different prices for the same item isn't commonly seen as very fair.

Re:Too Used to Microsoft EULAs

[bill_mcgonigle]

any system that would cater to that would be abused by scalpers

There are several ways to avoid that problem. Ticket count limits, refunds, etc.

So..

[WarlockD]

The companys that comprise of the National Association of Ticket Brokers are worried about the consumers or themselves. I am sure this stops alot of them from buying up thousands of tickets and reselling them at double the price.

The "Grandma Problem" ISN'T a problem anymore. Why not bind it to another number like your drivers license number? How about having a gift card with a magnetic strip? The kid punches in the number on the website to put his name in and he uses the gift card as authenticity at the gate. Hell, there even seems to be some "Ticket Exchange" according to the link so you can even resale your own tickets.

Who wants to bet Senator Herb Kohl has some money from this association? This is 2010. Going to the airport WITHOUT an e-ticket is annoying. I like the idea that I just need my wallet to get in the theater.

PS - Ticketmaster is a monopoly, their website sucks, and their phone ordering is from the 1990's. I have no love for them, but I see this more of a money fight than a real issue.

No sympathy whatsoever

[digitalhermit]

There were some reports that say that 30% - 50% of tickets were bought by brokers. They lock out fans from the best seats. They then resell those seats at a premium. Their excuse is that the open market will decide the price of the ticket. This logic falls down because the brokers artificially inflate the price of the seats that would normally go to the biggest fans.

I don't mind paying a small premium, waiting in line, hovering over the phone to get a good seat -- and I have before -- but the brokers now make even those things impossible. Now it's $2,500 a ticket for some shows with tickets of $100 face value.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[hawleyal]

I'm not allowed to buy all the new copies of Twilight and charge you twice as much?

I sure as fuck can.

Take your fascist corporate overlord market ideology somewhere else, buddy.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[bami]

But it's a funny sight when the venue won't be sold out, and all the ticket scalpers are desperate and lowering their prices.

I got in Muse at some concert, for about 25 euro for a seat (purchased it the evening before the concert), where as TicketNazi's want 52 euros + handling + whatever fees.

The venue get their money, the scalper is ~30 euros out of pocket and I saw a great concert.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Yvan256]

Feel free to buy all the new copies of Twilight and just burn them all, though.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[CastrTroy]

Yes, you could, buy doing that would almost be logistically impossible. Let's assume you went into a store and tried to buy every single copy on release day. The store has every single right to refuse sale to you and most stores probably would. Many stores have "1 per customer" rules to prevent this problem. I even see grocery stores do this all the time on sale items to so that customers don't get annoyed when all the sale items are gone. The other option is to go to Amazon.com and try to order all 100,000 copies they will ship in the next 2 days. However, if you try to place that all in 1 order, their system would probably flag it, or they would hold off shipping to you until a later date, when all the individual sales have been fulfilled. There's very few things where it's possible to buy up such a large percentage of something and also purchase something that won't be available later. Once all the tickets are sold, they are gone. You can't just wait a few days or weeks like you can with books and more will be produced. It's like saying you're going to buy all the iPads. You could, but then Apple will just keep on producing more. Most sane people would probably wait an extra couple of weeks for something than pay twice as much. You might be able to get some people on this, but most people who wanted iPad/Twilight/whatever, already pre-ordered 6 months before it came out and will get it delivered a couple days after it comes out.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[thegrassyknowl]

My problem with this is that these scummy brokers make it hard to get seats when they open. They use automated scripts and any number of credit card numbers and ensure they hammer the vendor's servers as hard as possible. They do this because the Internet makes it so easy to do. While they're doing this of course I have to put up with timeouts, dropped connections and a general inability to get tickets.

The Internet has already removed the thrill of waiting in line to get tickets. Perhaps if these ticketing companies simply opened up for physical sales at the ticket booth (say) a day before they opened online sales they'd do far more damage to the professional scalpers. Waiting in line to buy a maximum of 4 tickets is a time consuming and expensive process when you're trying to rapidly buy up the largest number possible.

Die-hard fans will queue up to get tickets if they go online. Other fans will rush to the ticket office to get them at some point very early on in the sale process if that's the only way to get them.

Fuck the scalpers, start selling tickets via face to face transaction again and the problem is reduced.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[BassMan449]

Just because the venue was selling the tickets for $100 doesn't mean that that is all they are worth to the market. The reason the brokers do it is because there are people willing to pay those prices. The open market values the tickets much higher and so people will naturally try to profit off the bargain that the venue is selling them for.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Anonymous Coward]

They can keep making copies of Twilight as long as people are still willing to buy it. You will have wasted your money because your attempt at artificially raising the price by making the item scarce will not beat the ability to produce more copies. A concert venue, however, only has a limited number of seats.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[GigsVT]

I guess you are also pissed off when Expedia buys a block of hotel room reservations to resell on their site?

They aren't "artificially inflating" the price if people are willing to pay that price. They are just making sure that the people who want the seats the most (i.e. are willing to pay the most) actually get them. This is indeed how the market insures the most efficient allocation.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[EastCoastSurfer]

So you're saying the biggest fans will only pay $100, but the not biggest fans will pay $2500?

The brokers are reselling the seats at market prices. The fastest real way to stop scalpers would be to raise ticket prices from the start. A more complicated process would be a dutch auction or any other way to maximally charge each person what they will pay for a ticket.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that is exactly the open market. If people didn't pay those prices and instead insisted on paying only listed value, then the scalper wouldn't bother as the whole thing wouldn't be worth his time. Instead, he knows that people will generally pay a LOT more then what the face value of the ticket is. If you want to rage at anyone, it's the idiots buying the tickets. They are the ones that are paying money to the people you loath. They pay for that mans house, meals and way of life. And thus, the profession of scalping is alive and well.

So why doesn't Ticketmaster just jack up the prices, or the bands themselves demand more money. Since that's obvious the real market value of the tickets. Because they know you, the consumers would go livid! You wouldn't stand for paying $1,200 for one ticket for your favorite band!

But then you go to a scalper, moan and groan at him for charging you the exact same amount of money, but buy anyways because you say, "It's the only way.". So you're angry at the anonymous scalper for 10 minutes, but would be angry at the band forever, if they dared to charge you an honest market value for that seat.

Sort of funny how it works that way, isn't it?

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[vegiVamp]

What I wonder about is *how* the scalpers get a hold of that many tickets. Limiting direct sales of tickets to, say, four per client (as some organisations I know do) will pretty much have the same effect as greylisting has on spammers: it suddenly becomes much more of a bother to run your operation.

If you legitimately need more tickets (say, radio show wants to do a contest, whatever), contact the organisation personally.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Anonymous Coward]

... even brokers owned by ticketmaster.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Haxzaw]

Fact is, no one has to buy a ticket from a scalper. If you can't get a ticket at a reasonable price, then don't go to the show. If scalpers stop making money, they'll stop scalping tickets. DON'T SUPPORT THE SCALPERS!

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Anonymous Coward]

Brokers don't "lock out" "fans".
They are just more diligent than "fans".
The market still sets the ultimate price - middleman or no, and if its too high, the brokers won't sell the tickets.

We have little trouble getting premium seats to given concerts at face, but it requires that you pay attention to detail, you have your TM account ready and waiting the moment the Nth presale comes online, and oh, btw, "Face" is a lot higher than it used to be, now that CD sales don't produce much revenue.

For 2nd-rate (old) acts, we actually get really good seats, often below "face", because of the active resale market.

Learn how the marketplace works before you seek to destroy it.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[jvkjvk]

I'm sorry to say but YOUR point of view is the one of the facist overlords, "buddy".

You are merely stating that anyone with enough cash can monopolize the market, and everyone else has to just suck it up.

The heart of the current corporatist ideology, which you seem to have bought into, is that there is value in any and every form of intermediation.

In your example, you are merely being a parasite and leach, provding NEGATIVE value to the entire chain of transactions. Oh yeah, except for you. Of course, that is kind of the definition of "parasite".

Regards.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Anonymous Coward]

And this extra money doesn't go to the producers or the stars. Hard-line capitalists always harp on about how capitalism always converges to the best solution, but here it clearly yields the wrong result. "An open market is really best for consumers." - that's a blatant lie, it just drives prices up. I've heard this issue in many interviews, and a lot of artists simply don't want to make more than they do, and want to give all their fans a fair chance at attending a concert, not just the rich ones. That attitude should be lauded, not abused.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[sjames]

Sure you can, but be prepared to get stuck holding them when the publisher makes more and sells them at the regular price.

Too bad that doesn't and can't happen with concerts.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Anonymous Coward]

No one wants to prevent you from buying all of the new copies of Twilight. Go for it. Reproducing DVDs and books is cheap and essentially infinite. Good luck trying to resell at inflated prices.

Tickets are of limited quantity. They can tie tickets to IDs at purchase time to prevent resale, and they are. Everyone besides scalpers benefits from this, so don't expect the government to prevent ticket sellers from doing this.

In short, no, you sure as fuck can't buy all of the tickets and then resale at twice the price. Not anymore. Go to hell asshole.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Mitreya]

Perhaps if these ticketing companies simply opened up for physical sales at the ticket booth (say) a day before they opened online sales they'd do far more damage to the professional scalpers.

Perhaps. But they often have exclusive contracts with ticketmaster and offer NO WAY of buying tickets at the venue. I think this should be illegal. I come into the theater - tickets are on sale and available - but they tell me to go to the third party website (and pay lots of "convenience" fees).

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[thegrassyknowl]

Perhaps. But they often have exclusive contracts with ticketmaster and offer NO WAY of buying tickets at the venue. I think this should be illegal. I come into the theater - tickets are on sale and available - but they tell me to go to the third party website (and pay lots of "convenience" fees).

Perhaps where you are. At least here the ticketing agencies I know of all have a physical presence (booths) around the place. Many have a presence in the larger venues they represent, as well as larger shopping malls. I've never had a problem walking into the store and talking to a person about buying a ticket. You still pay the "booking fee", but at least you made them actually do something now because a person's salary was involved.

Re:No sympathy whatsoever

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously not a big enough fan if you're not willing to pay $2500. The market works and only those who are big enough fans will get the good seats.

Me personally, I'd never spend $100 for a seat, not even for my favorite band.

In theory...

[Max Romantschuk]

An open market where consumers buy tickets and are free to sell them if they can't make it to the show is good for consumers.

But a market where professionals buy tickets to sell at a profit does in no way make it better for consumers.

But can't grandma be allowed to buy credits for her grandchild, who then uses said credits to buy a ticket in his/her own name?

Re:In theory...

[hawleyal]

Allowing anyone to buy and sell tickets does in every way make it better for consumers.

These are market freedoms need protecting.

I don't care who is buying the tickets.

Or if they are usually charging more than face value.

Re:In theory...

[Culture20]

But can't grandma be allowed to buy credits for her grandchild, who then uses said credits to buy a ticket in his/her own name?

Maybe do this, and make it a pain in the ^$&@ to transfer the ticket(s). One person transferring 4 tickets to another person might have to waste two hours online with a website that is purposefully slow, but that prevents big-business scalping (unless they find it profitable still to open offshore call centers to do the ticket transfers. "I diligently multitasked and transferred 36 tickets today, surely I will get the raise now."

Re:In theory...

[LordKronos]

Allowing anyone to buy and sell tickets does in every way make it better for consumers.

In EVERY way? So how exactly is it better if I have to choose to either take a seat much further back or pay an inflated price to someone else to get a good seat?

Re:In theory...

[EastCoastSurfer]

It's better in every way because you were able to buy a seat AT ALL.

Events with tons of free seats are not the ones where the inflated prices occur. In fact, with these events you can often get tickets below face value. The events where you see the inflated prices are the sold out in 5 minute shows. Right now if you miss the click lottery you can still get tickets to the event, although at a market price that reflects the demand. With this new system if you miss the click lottery you have no other options.

Re:In theory...

[Anonymous Coward]

** But a market where professionals buy tickets to sell at a profit does in no way make it better for consumers.

Wrong. There are many ways to allocate a good - government distribution, lottery, first come, selling, etc. Allocating by selling, ie, charging money for it, provides efficient allocation because the people who value the good the most get it. You seem to be advocating the 'first come' method, which involves standing in lines for an eternity. Professionals buying the reselling tickets at the market price benefits everyone who's time is better spent not standing in line for hours.

Re:In theory...

[caerwyn]

You need to do a little more research into corporations and their habits in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'm not saying that this is necessarily comparable to those days, but regulation of various sorts, eg to limit the influence professional scalpers can have, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Re:In theory...

[hawleyal]

regulating resellers is a bad thing when original sellers have a monopoly or are generally not being regulated themselves.

Re:In theory...

[LordKronos]

Wait....so what you are telling me is that even with the scalpers I was able to buy a seat on my own, but if there had been no scalpers buying up a significant portion of the seats, there would have been NO seats available? Yeah, right. I can tell you from first hand experience (been going to concerts for a long time) that is absolutely false. These days, the tickets I get are consistently and significantly worse than they were years ago (back when scalpers actually had to pay people to stand in line to buy tickets). I've NEVER gone to buy tickets (no matter how big the act) and been told "sorry, it's sold out". So I can tell you that it's not better in EVERY way...not by a long shot. For me, I can't think of one way it's better having scalpers.

Re:In theory...

[EastCoastSurfer]

So you think if we got rid of scalpers there would be no sold out shows? More people go to events now than ever before, and they are willing to pay a premium to do it. A popular event will sell out with or without scalpers.

If the event still has tickets available when you decide to buy then buy them from the event. In those instances I still go the scalpers because it's going to be cheaper since demand is so low. In those cases I can easily get my tickets below face value. Win for me, loss for the scalper. In scenarios where the event is in high demand scalpers make it possible for me to buy a ticket at market prices instead of just winning click lottery. Does it cost more? Sure, that's how high demand/low supply items work. If the price is too high I simply don't go, but I'm happy to at least have the option to go.

Re:In theory...

[LordKronos]

But you don't seem to understand...the point being made was that the system is better IN EVERY WAY with scalpers involved. I was indicating that is clearly false, and here you are arguing with me.

I never said there would be no sold out shows. I said that I've never not been able to get tickets. If you aren't into concerts the way I am, and you wait until a week after tickets go on sale to try and buy them, then sure, you may have a problem. I'm not like that. Whenever a band I am interested in is coming in concert, I ALWAYS know about it at least a week (usually more) before tickets go on sale. And I'm always right there waiting to get tickets the instant they go on sale (whether that means clicking refresh in my browser, or waiting in line for hours years ago before online ticket sales)

So it may be better for you, but I don't care about that...that's not the point. For me, it is NOT better in EVERY way...it's actually worse in every way.

Re:In theory...

[kindbud]

But can't grandma be allowed to buy credits for her grandchild, who then uses said credits to buy a ticket in his/her own name?

Yes, they can.

Re:In theory...

[caerwyn]

That's probably true- but in that case I'd say the problem is to fix the monopoly rather than protect a largely anti-consumer secondary market.

ObAutomotiveAnalogy

[Rogerborg]

This is like buying a car in order to drive to a Miley Cyrus show where she jumps around in hot pants, but then being unable to sell it afterwards.

No, wait... that's a bad analogy. It's like renting a car to watch Miley Cyrus jiggling around in a crop top, but then... uh... maybe it's like buying a tank of gas to go and watch her writhing around glistening with sweat...

Wait - what are we talking about again?

Re:ObAutomotiveAnalogy

[jht]

I'd mod that as funny if I had any points right now. In fact, even Chris Hansen would mod that as funny.

Then he'd show up at your house with a camera crew.

Cool!

[Errol backfiring]

Who's grandma is so cool as to buy Metallica tickets?

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

The same grandma that puts on a Gene Simmons mask to cheer you up!

Re:Cool!

[betterunixthanunix]

The kind that calls up her grandchild's parents a few weeks before his birthday and says, "Remind me, what is the name of that band on all of his T-shirts? You know what I mean, metal something or other?" Really, this is not at all unheard of -- my grandma used to ask my mom what I wanted for my birthday all the time when I was a kid.

Re:Cool!

[dave420]

A grandma with terrible taste in music? OOOOHH!!!

No problem

[ledow]

If the second-hand ticket industry is really that valuable to users, one of two things will happen:

- People will not buy tickets that they can't sell second-hand if they think that it's likely they will need to do so.
- People who sell those tickets will raise their prices to compensate for the scarcity.

Given the sheer number of ticket-resellers in London's West End, I can't really think that this is a bad thing. Either the theatres and other gigs will put them out of business, so I won't get harangued and so that 90% of the shops in the area sell something *OTHER* than theatre tickets - but more likely is that they will have to integrate with the theatre ticket-selling systems and thus also issue "paperless tickets" and no-one else will be any the wiser. I'd be surprised if this hasn't already happened.

Additionally, a lot of tickets have always said they are not transferable. My car park doesn't allow me to transfer a ticket but only recently have they cracked down on this by printing your car registration on the ticket itself and fining those that don't match the car. My train ticket isn't transferable. My bus ticket isn't transferable. Most loyalty cards are not transferrable. All airline tickets are not transferable. I don't see how/why a ticket to a theatre or gig should be transferable either - it's up to the company if it is and whether they just write it on there, or whether they emblazon it on your forehead and DNA-check you, I don't really care... you agree to those terms and had an opportunity to say "Actually, no, that's not what I want to buy because it has no resale value". My bet is that those tickets have all held a disclaimer to that effect for the last 50 years and nobody's really bothered to complain until they now start enforcing it.

If you've bought a ticket and can't attend - that's a sad problem for you. There may be good reasons or not. The theatre/gig may negotiate or not. But, hell, if I bought a seat in a restaurant, room in a hotel, etc. and don't turn up, you'll find that they will be chasing me up. I cost them money by abusing their reservation system which could be manipulated to the point that they are put out of business. They may even decide to charge me nonetheless, even if the circumstances are beyond my control. It's at their discretion and you knew the terms when you signed up. If I book an appointment at my doctor and don't turn up, they can theoretically charge me - and I'm in a country that offers free healthcare.

Being able to recoup your money on something you can't attend isn't a right. You made a booking. Stick to it, or pay the cost of the ticket. Just because you can't sell it on to someone else doesn't make it "bad"... the company are most likely doing it for other reasons rather than stopping you selling the ticket on - for a start, they don't make any more or less money if the person who turns up at the gig is the original buyer. Chances are that, overall, second-hand tickets go for on average the same as first-hand - above cost when they are in high demand and below cost if someone get knocked out of the World Cup early. Chances are that touting does NOT make any difference to the finances of a show/gig. But it might be a security issue, or a public-order issue, or just a plain membership issue where you pass on discount tickets to random people who aren't eligible for the discount.

Re:No problem

[GaryOlson]

Do you really like living your life beholden to a corporate entity's ideas of how you should act?

Re:No problem

[ledow]

No. But you have the ultimate power. You can choose *not* to use their services. When parking meters went in on a busy city-centre street near my house (which has ample parking space and lots of traffic movement, but they wanted to get greedy and charge), people STOPPED using the street and parked in perfectly legitimate spaces in side-roads, car parks, etc. The streets emptied, the businesses protested and campaigned and eventually a little "No longer in use" bag appeared on every parking meter.

You *do* have a choice to not support corporations. It's inherent in their design and finances. If you don't buy gig tickets that are protected as such, then they will, eventually, stop being used. Much like nobody bought ID cards (yes, our government were trying to make people pay to identify themselves, on an optional ID measure that wasn't as good as the passport they already had to have), so ID cards were scrapped. Nobody doubt DAB so that's on it's last legs. People stop buying games with DRM so major titles start abandoning it, disabling it, and relaxing it.

I have no problem with a theatre that wants to lock my tickets to my credit card (did it a few weeks ago and, considering I was picking up the tickets the next day for the performance on that night, I actually *liked* that nobody else could just walk up to the counter knowing my name and get my tickets. Sure I could argue with the guy on the front desk / in my seat but it's hassle I don't need), so I don't particular care about them doing so. If I did, I'd stop using them, even if it only took a second to buy a pre-paid credit card, or whatever other measures would allow me to satisfy the rules. The Olympics 2012 is supposed to be Visa-only for payments because they have sponsored it. I don't agree with it, so I won't be buying stuff from it with Visa. Not even if they offer Visa prepaid cards for cash on every stall. Don't want my cash, that's fine, you don't get it.

If people stopped giving money to places that want to screw them over, this problem would have been solved before it started. As it is, I don't mind it at all because I have no intention to ever sell a ticket that I've booked, or buy one for a third party. If I did, I wouldn't want to lumber someone else with the burden of digging out credit cards at the entrance, and I wouldn't buy ones that couldn't be sold on. Problem solved. The people that care should STOP buying things. The people who don't won't ever care.

Empty seats

[Culture20]

With virtual tickets, concerts will end up with a certain amount of empty seats as people's plans change or they become sick and can not give the tickets to a friend. Empty seats are a sign of a bad concert, as anyone knows. Of course they'll soon realize that an old airline trick will fix that with a bonus: oversell concerts, and tell the overflow they're on "standby" until the next concert. Full seats and extra money!

Not all resellers are scalpers

[TwiztidK]

Where I live, people like to buy season tickets to sporting events, keep the tickets to the games they can actually attend, and sell the others at a discount. Because of this, I went to a hockey game where tickets cost $40, but I only paid $25.

Fuck the bastards.

[Vegeta99]

Seriously.

When I was a student at PSU, you could buy student season football tickets and sell ONE TICKET to a big game and pay back the whole season plus a healthy profit. You needed to show student ID to get in, but that wouldn't stop some rich alumna. Senior year they switched to some dumb system where you had to wait in line with whatever student you wanted to give the ticket to, only on Tuesday and Thursday, and only from like 10-3 minus a lunch break.

Assholes.

What ?

[eulernet]

Four months ago, kdawson put the opposite story on the front page:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/0135238/Scalpers-Earned-25M-Gaming-Online-Ticket-Sellers

So, basically, the resellers were making money by reselling tickets that they bought via hacking of the reservation system.
And now, you'd like to preserve the current flawed system ?

Suggestion:
Allow the system to reimburse the tickets (minus 5-10% of the original price, for example), and all the problems are solved.

This system works fine with train reservations, why won't it work on concert tickets ?

e-Tickets in Switzerland and Germany

[DrYak]

There seem to be two solutions to such a problem :

- A solution I've often found in concerts in Switzerland : (Secutix)
the e-Ticket is simply a 2D-barcode (although it's not "paperless" because most people still print it instead of sending it to smartphones screens) it *is* tied to an identity.
BUT
to enter the concert you are only asked to have a valid barcode. the identity only comes into play if several people attempt to enter the concert using the same barcode (only the one with the matching ID is allowed in).
That doesn't stop you from giving a ticket to a friend.
But that throws distrust on scalper : How do you know the guy is selling you a legitimate ticket and not copying the same single barcode to several clients ? (in which case only the first one can get in before the system detects duplicates).

These e-tickets don't remove your right to resell, but a resell can only happen between trusting friends.

- A solution I've found in German Trains :
the e-Ticket is tied to an identity, but it is not that complicate to refund it and invalidate the barcode, then buy a different ticket.

You can't directly resell a ticket, but you won't lose the ticket.

And the last solution :
Most of those situations still have classic tickets for situations where the e-Ticket doesn't do the trick.

Re:e-Tickets in Switzerland and Germany

[gillbates]

What I wonder is, if your system is adopted, what is to stop a scalper from simply printing off a bunch of barcodes, selling them to the early birds, and letting the legitimate ticketholders duke it out with management because their barcode has already been scanned?

In such a scenario, only the real ticketholders lose.

Re:e-Tickets in Switzerland and Germany

[themacks]

Presumably their ID would be tied the the legitimate ticket they purchased and after presenting it they would be allowed to enter.

Re:e-Tickets in Switzerland and Germany

[stephanruby]

to enter the concert you are only asked to have a valid barcode. the identity only comes into play if several people attempt to enter the concert using the same barcode (only the one with the matching ID is allowed in).

Are tickets called in a sequential order? If someone has a copied ticket, what prevents him/her from trying to enter at the earliest possible time to beat whoever has the legitimate copy. I guess this solution should work for some concerts, where calling people sequentially is possible, and this should also work in concerts where assigned seating is strictly enforced and respected, but otherwise I don't see this solution working super well for some of the bigger concert venues I've been to that have lawns as their seating areas.

Re:e-Tickets in Switzerland and Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

But that throws distrust on scalper : How do you know the guy is selling you a legitimate ticket and not copying the same single barcode to several clients ? (in which case only the first one can get in before the system detects duplicates).

That depends on how much you value anonymity in ticket resales.

If you don't care about keeping ownership data private, Ticketmaster themselves could act as a trusted brokerage for ticket resales. I'm sure they'd love to get away with charging their "convenience fee" multiple times for a single ticket.

The problem with scalping is that sports games and concerts are seen as something that should be priced below market value so they are more accessible to the population at large. One extreme argument against Little Johnny being priced out of seeing the World Series is that 50,000 people are willing to pay more than he can afford, so boo hoo. The other extreme is that most arenas and venues are heavily, if indirectly, subsidized with civic money: land, parking, extra police, emergency services, traffic, etc, so the local taxpayers should get prioritized access to what their taxes pay for.

There only three options for keeping initial sale price down: make people stand in line (competing on whose time is worth the least), hold a lottery (so people can try their luck), or hand the problem off to scalpers (who make money in exchange for absorbing financial risk and bad PR)

If I were elected despot, these are the rules I'd make: No venue supported by public money or services can sell more than one-third of their tickets to a single buyer, nor may they use a single ticket brokerage for more than one-third of their tickets. Venues and ticket brokerages must provide a service that verifies the authenticity of any tickets they have sold, and that service must be equivalently easy to access by the public as any methods they use to sell tickets. Scalping is legal, but is subject to normal commerce laws and license requirements.

Re:e-Tickets in Switzerland and Germany

[badran]

But the holders of fake tickets will be admitted to the venue.

The 'problem' is artificial and easily solved

[Joce640k]

Grandma should be allowed put a different name on the ticket than the one on her credit card. All the grandchild needs is some ID with a matching name on it. Problem solved.

Can I patent this process please?

Re:The 'problem' is artificial and easily solved

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFS:

Fans buy tickets with a credit card and must then go to the venue with the same credit card and a photo ID to gain admittance

Re:The 'problem' is artificial and easily solved

[RobertLTux]

easy way to fix Grandma just needs to get Grandson a prepaid CC and use that to purchase the tickets
(or the system needs to allow for a second card to be used for id purposes)

Re:The 'problem' is artificial and easily solved

[Joce640k]

Ummm, that's why I said "should be allowed to".

Re:The 'problem' is artificial and easily solved

[BitterOak]

Grandma should be allowed put a different name on the ticket than the one on her credit card. All the grandchild needs is some ID with a matching name on it. Problem solved.

Can I patent this process please?

Exactly. Just like you can do with airline tickets. My mother runs a literary festival and buys plane tickets for authors all the time. No problems.

Right...

[spamuell]

...says Gary Adler, a Washington attorney who represents the National Association of Ticket Brokers. 'An open market is really best for consumers.'

Yeah, and an unguarded forest is much safer for little girls delivering food to their sick grandmothers, says the attorney representing the National Association of Transvestic Wolves.

Re:Right...

[Toad-san]

"Hello," the lawyer lied.

First we shoot all the lawyers.

Airlines

[Anonymous Coward]

While they're at it, could they sue some airlines for non-transferable, non-refundable tickets? This practice is completely inexcusable for domestic flights and only marginally excusable for international flights.

Stubhub

[IANAAC]

Stubhub will sell your electronic tickets, from what I understand (I've never used them, but checking their tutorials, they seem to allow for transfer of electronic tickets; it doesn't look to be all that straight forward, though.)

Re:Stubhub

[Dredd13]

They'll sell your E-Tickets (ie, when you get a PDF that you're supposed to print out as a ticket to bring with you) but with paperless tickets, there's nothing for you to give stubhub to use to sell the ticket. No barcode numbers, nothing.

"Seats" for Metallica?

[uncledrax]

If you're getting a reserved seat for a Metallica concert.. then someone is doing something wrong.

Profiteers

[TexVex]

'People should be free to give away or sell their tickets to whomever they want, whenever they want,' says Gary Adler, a Washington attorney who represents the National Association of Ticket Brokers. 'An open market is really best for consumers.' This is such a huge conundrum.

An open market is a great idea when built around the basic assumption that all the traders in it are potential consumers of the things being traded. But when entities whose sole motivation is profit enter the market, the game changes. The small consumers get screwed because the huge profiteers buy up enormous quantities of commodities and proceed to engage in arbitrage for the sole purpose of turning a profit.

Money goes to money. Wealthy 'investors' buy something up, creating scarcity, driving up the prices, then re-sell for a profit. Profiteering is the problem.

What needs to happen is the venues need to sell their tickets at auction, instead of setting a price based on what they think the tickets are worth. This would let them make most of the money, because the first-sale price would more closely match the actual value of the tickets, and such a system would be much more fair for everyone from the big resellers to the individual consumer.

Re:Profiteers

[bnenning]

What needs to happen is the venues need to sell their tickets at auction

Yes, that would be the most efficient process. But then when tickets for popular shows get bid up to high levels, there would be howls of outrage over "gouging". Bands would prefer that you're angry at TicketMaster and scalpers rather than at them.

Easy Cash Transfer

[Afty0r]

Any reasons grandma can't just transfer the cash for the ticket?

Re:Easy Cash Transfer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a crack addict and would just buy drugs instead of my Metallica ticket.

IAATM (It's Always About The Money)

[q2k]

From a purely technical standpoint, allowing the buyer to log in and change the owner of the ticket would be trivial. Upon the change, the system sends a new password to the new email address, and that person must log in and add a credit card number that will be used for verification at the venue. Paperless tickets exist for only one reason. Ticketmaster wants to capture the value in increased demand by raising prices instead of seeing it go to the middlemen.

Re:IAATM (It's Always About The Money)

[LarrySDonald]

This was sort of my take on it. However, it wouldn't cut back on scalping seeing as I could now resell to someone else, transfer it to them and there you go. So it's not really about if you need a paper stub or not, the paper stub is nothing but a password anyhow and could easily be on your cell or in your brain or a piece of paper you wrote it on.

For the record, I've been to four concert type events last year and only at one of those did the original payed up asses end up in the seats. All others, one or more people ended up unable to go and were replaced (sometimes at cost, sometimes for free) with other friends or acquaintances. So.. Yeah, paying for paper tickets were on the whole worth it saving more then I would have otherwise lost.

Re:IAATM (It's Always About The Money)

[johnny cashed]

And then the ticket sellers (Ticketmaster et al) could charge a "transfer fee" to make a little "extra" money on the transaction. Does this solve the problem?

Carrying ID + creditcard to a concert = bad idea

[captainpanic]

Concert:

You drink, you jump around (call it dancing if you want), you drink some more and dance some more and drink some and dance some. Worse even at festivals where you also sit down in random places, and (not uncommonly) even sleep at random places.

The more you bring to the concert, the more you can lose. I bet not a single concert ends without someone losing a wallet. The more was in that wallet, the bigger the consequences for its owner.

I never take a credit card to such a concert/festival. I only bring a debet card (which nobody can use without a pin-code) and I also leave my ID at home if I don't cross any borders.

I really hope that the venues will only use this tricks against secondary ticket sales in a few cases of the most popular concerts... only when it will sell out really soon.

I agree however that something needs to be done against these parasites that just buy all the tickets, and re-sell them with a margin on top. They add nothing to society. Can't we just outlaw them worldwide?

grandma problem?

[circletimessquare]

Whose grandmother is buying them concert tickets to Sevendust or Sean Paul?

Can we trade grandmas?

Mine just buys me socks

Tautology Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Executive summary: a system designed to prevent X is found to prevent X.

This is surprising, actually...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Now, everybody knows that Ticketmaster is evil, ruthless, money-grubbing, and generally a suppurating pustule on the face of live music and events. It would be totally in character to tie tickets to purchases to "protect consumers from those evil scalpers"(and themselves from the horrors of the secondary market...)

However, making it impossible to purchase tickets for somebody else is just leaving money on the table. It seems like it would be absurdly trivial to have a system where the customer/hapless sucker can purchase a ticket and either tie it to their own name or immediately tie it to some other name(the bearer of which would need to then prove using state ID of some sort). For kiddie stuff, you could tie to 1 or 2 parents/guardians, since a child might not have ID.

That wouldn't substantially reduce the "security" of the system, nor would it spare the secondary market to any useful degree; but it would allow gifting, and thus presumably increase sales. Why wouldn't they have done that ages ago?

2 options, gift certificate or buy-back

[fluor2]

I think the following options might help:
1. An option for gift certificate solving the "grandma problem". Just buy a certificate for e.g. $100 at MyTicketService.com (or similar), which I bet they already can do.
2. Buy-back. The ticket services should buy back for 90% of price within 3 days before concerts, 50% 2 days before, and 40% the day before. This way they would also be able to counterfeit the black market.

I don't care about people trying to sell tickets for profit. They just destroy for us all when they buy more tickets than they are able to use. Why should we care about them?

"An open market is really best for consumers"

[Bourdain]

I agree, but it's typically worst for sellers.

Given the environment of the near monopoly that Live Nation // Ticketmaster has over venues and artists combined with the desire of artists to underprice their tickets I fear it'll be a while before we see any substantive change.

I'd check out this new yorker article (subscription required) for a good review of the poor economic situation.

Doing it wrong

[Skal Tura]

The grandma problem only happens because they are doing it completely wrong. Yeah, i can imagine the evil need to restrict like this, but it's not requirement of "paperless" tickets.

Ultimately they are selling only access to the event (and seat), and this ought not to be restricted by any means, and it's just extra that you need to show CC & photo ID to use that ticket, it's not an requirement.

I work as IT Consultant for a modern ticketing service provider ( http://axs.fi/ ), and we don't need any such. We have quite streamlined ticketing process, where tickets are not tied to certain individuals, and tickets come as PDF, E-Mail attachment and SMS, plus you can download the ticket again via the website by logging in. Ticket scalping is a good kind of a "problem" to have, and scalping ought to be used as educational for promoters. This shows the true value of the tickets.

If you want to curb scalping, you can restrict the # of tickets sold per person for example. But scalping really isn't the problem, there's a supply vs. demand disparity, and then scalping happens. Bottomline is: Efforts like this just lowers total revenue (ticket price or tickets sold), without benefit to the artist/event organizer nor individuals. In other words: To hinder a marginal group of people, everyone else suffers. Sounds a bit like the "anti-piracy" fight, with DRM, MAFIAA etc.? Those 2 things are more similar than you'd think....

Open market works only for "equal purchasers"

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that a large number of the "best tickets" are gone before the general public has a opportunity to purchase. Most of these tickets always wind up on the "second hand" market at drastically increased prices. I would rather pay the band in a more direct fashion that feed a "monopoly scalper"....

What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[brunes69]

I am sick and tired of people making a big deal about scalping.

Isn't scalping basically the epitome of free market capitalism?

If I buy 10 of the new Xbox 360 from the local Walmart where there are lots, and sell them on eBay for a profit, is that "scalping" 360s ?

When Exxon drills oil in the middle east and sells it to Europe for a profit where there is none, is that "scalping" oil?

"Scalping" is just taking a gamble, buying something that you think will be in demand (tickets), and re-selling for a (hopefully) profit. There is plenty of potential to lose money for scalpers buying tickets to things and them going unsold, this happens all the time.

What is wrong with this? If you wanted your damn tickets, you should have waited in line like everyone else.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wait in line you won't get any damn tickets because 1.65 seconds after they've been for sale, all the scalpers will have already bought them online.

Yes that's how free market works, but they're abusing the system.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Aladrin]

Sadly, yes. That is exactly how the 'free market' works.

And if people would just stop buying from scalpers, they wouldn't be such a problem. Just like spam wouldn't be a problem if people would stop buying from spammers.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[ryanw]

Something that everyone isn't realizing is why they are doing this. There is a positive reason behind all this.

People are more and more increasingly double or tripple or more selling a single ticket online, in person, etc. What happens when "grandma" paid top dollar to take her grandkids to a Miley cirus concert just to find out that those grandkids who have been so excited for weeks can't get in because the concert is sold out and someone already entered the building with the same "eticket"?

Ticket fraud is on the up swing. It is much more detramental to have someone physically at a venue who is not being allowed in to a concert because they find out their ticket is invalid while their kids are crying and screaming. Parents will do most anything for their kids.

I support this movement to a more secure eticket.

Something they should consider is a "re-register" process to verify a ticket is valid and switch out ownership of the ticket. I wouldn't expect anything like this in the near future as it would require a fairly extensive uplift to ticket purchasing systems.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Inda]

It's called touting here and when the tout (read official ticket office staff) buys half the stock before the general sale, it creates a false scarcity.

Saying that, I've bought tickets at 10% of the face value by missing the first 5 minutes of a sporting event. It can work both ways.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Spad]

The problem occurs when you buy 10 of the new Xbox 360 from the local Walmart where there are 10, then stand outside and resell them for 5 times the RRP. Under normal circumstances, people would laugh at your stupid prices and go buy one from Walmart, but they can't because you've removed that option for them.

Actually, Xboxes are a bad analogy because they're not really time-limited. Concert tickets are, you can't just wait a week or so for more stock to come in (even if they add more dates the scalpers will just buy up loads of those tickets as well and not everyone has the free time to dedicate to making sure they're first in line when the tickets go on sale).

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't I buy from them? They are selling something I want at a price that I am willing to pay. What's the problem?

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Dr_Barnowl]

You're really just pointing out one of the problems with so-called free market capitalism. The much touted advantage of capitalism is that market competition drives down prices, which increases utility to the consumer. But it doesn't work so well, as in the cases you suggested, where there is a limited supply of non-fungible goods.

Exxon provides value by moving the oil from one place to another where it is more useful. In your example, if Xbox 360s are in short supply in one part of the country but plentiful in your local Walmart, you are providing value by moving the goods to where they are needed. If you are selling them on to locals, the value you are providing is that some people can translate a higher price into getting their Xbox earlier than if they'd had to wait for new stock - an Xbox now is worth more than an Xbox in the future. This is only really true if the demand outstrips the supply - if the demand and supply are similar, then you're just hoarding Xboxes for profit. But the supply chain for Xboxes is such that you can be reasonably sure that some more will be along soon.

In the case of concert tickets, there is no value to geographic translocation (the concert is in a fixed venue), or early acquisition (the concert is at a fixed time). The value the scalper is providing is that you don't have to queue to get your ticket, and you have a higher probability of getting a ticket because fewer people want to pay their higher price.

The problem being that the scalper is part of the reason they provide value ; they quickly buy up large quantities of tickets from the vendor, which artificially increases the scarcity of the goods. That isn't free-market capitalism, because they are distorting their market. If the organizer did their sums right, they should have enough seats for everyone willing to pay their stated ticket price. I'm not saying they do ... but in this case, the scalper is the reason for their own existence - the reason you're willing to pay the scalpers prices for a ticket is because the scalpers have bought them instead of you. They're not adding value and making a fat buck doing it and that annoys people. It's rent-seeking behaviour - they are profiting from the mere ownership of those tickets for a while.

If concert goers didn't have to pay their inflated prices, they'd have more disposable income remaining and organizers might put on more dates in bigger venues to capture that, resulting in money going toward what people actually want, which is live music performances.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever been in a concert before in these recent days?

Take a look at http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/0135238/Scalpers-Earned-25M-Gaming-Online-Ticket-Sellers?art_pos=1
It's a very good read with strong relation to this article.

As for your xbox question,

Yes, it counts as scalping. But, as long as you only buy a miniscule amount of it, it won't pose any problem at all. Trouble starts when you buy 50-100% of xboxes and makes you a de facto sole seller of xbox 360. YOU could set any price YOU want while *legitimate* people wanting to buy it at retail price will be forced to buy it at YOUR designated price.

For goods like xbox 360 and oil, it is hard to 'scalp' it due to the virtually unlimited supply of the goods. Eventually, new goods will be produced to 'replace' those scalped goods. Unless you also have an unlimited amount of resource, it's almost impossible to sustain your scalping practice. With ticket seats, only a number of seats would be designated for a given concert that may never happen again (well, actually all live concerts are one time experience). Thus, making it a breeding ground for scalping practice.

In here, 15+ years ago when cinemas were scarce, one can only bought tickets from scalpers. And now, when cinemas are easily found, the scalpers are long gone. When supplies are only enough to barely satisfy that much demands, of course it would make a breeding ground for scalping practice. Now, what I don't understand is why concert organizers won't add another show or two in the following day. If tickets are instantly bought by scalpers the moment it is opened to be sold, I'd say they could arrange for another concert. Double their sales, and people that missed their chance could have another shot. Still sold out? Arrange for next week.
If they do this, I'm sure it would drive the scalpers broke in 3 concerts, with them racking profits like crazy.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's in no way the epitome of capitalism. capitalism is about competition. you're not creating a competing product. you're cornering the market by buying out the resource and creating scarcity on purpose. the scarcity wouldn't exist if it weren't for the scalpers. everyone who buys a ticket at face value would be people who actually want the ticket. the ebay analogy is different because you're actually serving a market that didn't exist. whoever is buying it doesn't have xboxes in their area (unless you're buying out all the xboxes in your area and selling them to that same market. or you're selling to another market who's resources were bought out by another scalper. basically, if what you're doing is leading to market inefficiencies, then yes, you're scalping, otherwise, you're providing a service) and you're providing a service by selling them the xbox. the exxon one is an extremely bad analogy in that what you said is masking what they're actually doing. exxon is paying for drilling and all that stuff. you're comparing providing a service to scalping. scalping doesn't provide a service. its only self-serving. its only needed due to itself. if scalping didn't exist, it wouldn't be needed. its inefficient and anti-capitalism. its creating artificial scarcity and adversely harming the market for the consumer. nowhere would i ever define that as the epitome of capitalism.
 
Don't try to rationalize you're actions. Its twisting the market. It's not the way the market is supposed to work. You're gaming the system. You're providing a service by creating the need. You're like a firefighter who starts fires and then sells your service.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Lynal]

If I buy 10 of the new Xbox 360 from the local Walmart where there are lots, and sell them on eBay for a profit, is that "scalping" 360s ?

That's not scalping, that is a strawman. To fix your example, Microsoft releases XBox's a very small number of consoles, well below market price (they make money on games). You give a bum 40$ to wait 5 days first in line. Then you buy all the consoles, turn around to the others in line, and offer to sell at a 500% markup.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Archon-X]

I've asked myself this question multiple times as well.
There are plenty of examples in real life where people are prepared to pay a premium for various reasons

If I decide I really, really want to see a concert, and am happy to offset the higher cost of a scalped ticket against the wait / whatever of pre-purchasing, that's my concern.
It's my cash, and I can do what I want with it.

The counter-argument revolving around when scalpers purchase the majority of available tickets is however valid.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[TheWoozle]

The problem is with your understanding, not people's dislike of scalping. It's more like if you buy 10 Xboxes from the only Wal-Mart in town and they only have 12 in stock. Oh, and you got to buy them as they came off the delivery truck, because you're good friends with the manager.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[ErikZ]

There will always be more X-boxes later.

The concert is a one-time thing. Even if the performer comes back next year, a concert on a particular day at a particular place will never happen again.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Late Adopter]

You're really just pointing out one of the problems with so-called free market capitalism. The much touted advantage of capitalism is that market competition drives down prices, which increases utility to the consumer. But it doesn't work so well, as in the cases you suggested, where there is a limited supply of non-fungible goods.

That's *one* of the features of the market mechanism. Another important one (especially in this context) is that goods get into the hands of people who value them most.

In a perfect world everyone would have a large but finite supply of money, and then the question would be how best to allocate your funds to best achieve your desires. One person might be willing to pay what others consider an abnormally high price for tickets, while another might really like bowling, or racing yachts, or whatever. The situation with tickets is complicated by the fact that not everyone has the same income, and performing artists want to appeal to *all* their fans, not just the wealthy ones.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Man Eating Duck]

I am sick and tired of people making a big deal about scalping.

Isn't scalping basically the epitome of free market capitalism?
[...invalid examples here...]
What is wrong with this? If you wanted your damn tickets, you should have waited in line like everyone else.

No. Scalping is like bringing a tanker to a gas station, emptying all the pumps into your tanker, and then selling the fuel at triple price right outside the gas station. This is also the only gas station reachable with the fuel people have left in their tanks.

If you are one of the bastards yourself, let me give you a big, heartfelt FUCK YOU.

I'm an avid music fan and concert attendee (list here). Where I live scalping has been outlawed based on the laws against organised crime. The bastards still find ways around it (Concert ticket + a meal (burger) at only retail + $300!), but the organised firms doing it has had some problems after the law was passed. My main problems with "Ticket resellers" as they call themselves:

1) They employ armies of drones to buy tickets online for major events on launch, making it difficult for regular fans to get a ticket at retail price.

2) They don't provide added value, they basically inflate the price by creating an artificial scarcity, and leave the fans who "must see" their favourite bands with no option but to pay them extra for no added value whatsoever. This is fraud in my book.

3) They frequently can't sell all the tickets they've bought, even for a sold-out event. That means that THERE ARE TICKETS GOING UNUSED, which would otherwise have been bought by fans at retail price. Real fans are missing out on the concert! They might not even have the chance to go to the venue on the offchance that they can get an overpriced ticket. Note that the sharks still make a profit because of the tickets they manage to sell.

4) They make their livelihood essentially by going out of their way to disable you from buying a ticket in the first place, and then selling it to you with profit. Scum.

Most bands are also againts it. They value their fans, and don't like that lowlifes essentially exploit the band by fucking their fans over.

As for your point of them taking a gamble, not really. They even out the odds by doing this for many, many events, thus mitigating the consequence of overbuying for a certain event. Also, even if they're left with surplus tickets (see point three) they usually recover their investment on any sold-out event. A well-known scalper (didn't know that word in English) around here has made millions and lives in a big villa in an expensive neighbourhood, like any successful criminal.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is wrong with this? If you wanted your damn tickets, you should have waited in line like everyone else.

I tried to, but the tickets were sold out -- to scalpers -- by the time I got to the window.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the scalper is capable of staying in business because enough people are willing to pay the new market rate that it offsets (and them some) the cost of his unsold tickets. This implies that the original prices are in a non-optimal place on the supply-demand curve. The best way to kill scalpers is to raise prices (or increase supply) of the base tickets so that they can't find a better price point (one that offsets his "costs") on the curve by artificially creating scarcity.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's interesting. The implication is that the scalper is making a profit from the difference between the the price that is charged for the tickets and the price that people are willing to pay, so if the price of the tickets was raised sufficiently, then scalping would disappear, since it would no longer be profitable.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[jbarr]

In the case of concert tickets, there is no value to geographic translocation (the concert is in a fixed venue), or early acquisition (the concert is at a fixed time).

Unless it's general admission, wouldn't "early acquisition" result in a "better" seat location which, to many, would have a higher value?

Otherwise, very insightful!

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Eugene O'Neil]

A lot of people have ridiculous magical beliefs about the power of the "free market" that just aren't true, but nobody can just stop obeying the ACTUAL law of supply and demand any more than they could just stop obeying the law of gravity.

Let's say you're throwing a concert in an amphitheater with a thousand seats, and thus you're selling a thousand tickets. That's your supply, and you'll note that at least in this case it isn't an abstract metaphor. You have an actual "supply" of stuff you're selling, and you can't sell more of it than you have.

Now let's say that you want to make these tickets affordable, so you set the price at ten dollars, just like concert tickets used to cost in the good old days. Furthermore, let's pretend you have some magical way to stop scalpers from buying the tickets and re-selling them for profit. What happens?

Well, let's say a hundred thousand people are ready, willing, and able to buy those tickets for ten dollars, for the simple, honest purpose of actually seeing the show. That's your demand for the tickets... and it vastly outstrips your supply. One way or the other, no matter what you do, only one thousand people can sit in your amphitheater and watch the show, leaving the other ninety-nine percent disappointed. There is no way for the supply to meet the demand at this price.

How do you intend to resolve this? You can't blame it on the scalpers. They have been magically banished from the picture, and yet you STILL end up with the vast majority of potential customers feeling frustrated and unsatisfied.

The real problem here was created by you, when you decided to sell your tickets at such a ridiculously low price. I can understand feeling sorry for "real fans" who barely have two pennies to rub together, but there are just too many people who want to buy ten dollar tickets for you to find them all an actual PHYSICAL place to sit at the concert.

That's the actual law of supply and demand in action, and pretending you're somehow above such worldly mercantile concerns won't make your amphitheater any bigger.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[twoallbeefpatties]

I used to work at a hotel across the street from a baseball stadium in America. A couple of times, the scalpers just gave away tickets to some of my coworkers, generally ten minutes after the game had started. They were never angry about it, either. Those scalpers made plenty of money on the first sales, so they didn't mind losing a couple.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most stock owners "profit from the mere ownership of a stock for a while" so I'm not sure what your point was there. It is precisely the time shifting service that scalpers provide. Concert organizers want sellouts and price tickets accordingly. The only way tickets are available the week/day of the performance is that some savvy individuals know that the supply will be exhausted and so buy tickets to allow the availability at that point. It is possible they will not sell all of their tickets above face value, so they are taking a financial risk to allow those of us who are unable to buy in the first hour to still attend.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[sjames]

Actually, scalping is a form of rent seeking. Economists universally consider that to be a problem that must be somehow prevented.

If I buy 10 of the new Xbox 360 from the local Walmart where there are lots, and sell them on eBay for a profit, is that "scalping" 360s ?

Yes, it is. You took a commodity that was easily available, deliberately created an artificial scarcity and then took a profit from it.

When Exxon drills oil in the middle east and sells it to Europe for a profit where there is none, is that "scalping" oil?

No, they're not. They didn't create the scarcity that created the profit. They provided the actual service of drilling, pumping, refining, and transporting the oil. They may well commit many sins, but that's not one of them.

What is wrong with this? If you wanted your damn tickets, you should have waited in line like everyone else.

There's no longer a point. Even if you're first in line you'll get seats in the nosebleed section because the professional scalpers buy them in bulk electronically before the cashier at your local ticketmaster even gets the register open.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Aladrin]

I agree that pricing the theatre tickets at the actual point where supply and demand meet would also help fix the problem. There would still be a few people willing to pay WAY more than other people, and scalpers could make money from them... But scalpers would have a much harder time making money.

However, where art is concerned, that's a really hard point to figure out.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[bnenning]

Very well said.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Sky Cry]

In the case of concert tickets, there is no value to geographic translocation (the concert is in a fixed venue), or early acquisition (the concert is at a fixed time). The value the scalper is providing is that you don't have to queue to get your ticket, and you have a higher probability of getting a ticket because fewer people want to pay their higher price.

When you set the ticket price high enough, not all seats might sell. Higher price is therefore a risk. Scalper that buys tickets takes this risk upon himself: he might get stuck with the extra tickets that he paid for. Taking the risk in this way is the classical example of being a businessman. If the scalper is better at estimating demand than the concert organizer, then the scalper will get extra value from it. The fact that scalpers buy tickets, therefore, means that (they think) they can predict demand better than concert organizers. If organizers would be able to predict demand perfectly, then scalpers buying tickets will benefit organizers at the cost of the scalper investment. Scalpers are just filling in the void. This is, however, assuming the tickets can't be returned. A ticket should be either returnable for full cost OR transferable, not both. (But also not neither.)

The problem being that the scalper is part of the reason they provide value ; they quickly buy up large quantities of tickets from the vendor, which artificially increases the scarcity of the goods. That isn't free-market capitalism, because they are distorting their market. If the organizer did their sums right, they should have enough seats for everyone willing to pay their stated ticket price. I'm not saying they do ... but in this case, the scalper is the reason for their own existence - the reason you're willing to pay the scalpers prices for a ticket is because the scalpers have bought them instead of you. They're not adding value and making a fat buck doing it and that annoys people. It's rent-seeking behaviour - they are profiting from the mere ownership of those tickets for a while

The fact that it annoys people is irrelevant from the economical standpoint - of course everyone would love to have goods cheaper or even free. The scalpers are simply filling the void. Yes, they are buying tickets in bulk. But that's because they believe the tickets are under-priced. If they didn't believe so, they would not take the risk. In this case it's not about adding the value, it's about the transfer of the risk. Risk is always part of the equation. Still the same assumption applies: the ticket must not be returnable for full price.

If concert goers didn't have to pay their inflated prices, they'd have more disposable income remaining and organizers might put on more dates in bigger venues to capture that, resulting in money going toward what people actually want, which is live music performances.

Scalpers don't inflate price, they bring it on par with demand. The original price was simply too low. Yes, if organizers were better at estimating demand, they would put the price higher. But that means they have to put extra effort (money) into market research and take the risk upon themselves. If they don't want to do that, the scalpers will do it for them. Once again, the risk is always part of the equation.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see how this isn't free market capitalism. Just because something is scarce doesn't mean each transaction isn't free, it's just on a way different part of the supply-demand curve.

Each actor here is acting in what they perceive is their best interest. For some reason, TicketMaster decided not to price tickets as high as the market would bear. Why not mystifies me, but that's their call. At those prices with no scalpers, all the tickets will sell out in one hour. With scalpers, they sell out in 30 minutes instead.

The scalper provides value by allowing someone who doesn't want to hover over their keyboard at 8 AM the day tickets go on sale to pay more and buy later. The rich buyer pays a substantial convenience fee, the scalper took a risk that rich boomers wanted to see the Eagles N-th reunion tour. TicketMaster, the scalper and the rich SOB all wind up happy. You're not happy because the scarce product was too expensive for you but nothing guarantees everyone will be happy. My wife wants an $80k Lexus, it would make her very happy but neither she nor I thinks it's worth it.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly right. This is (at least in the UK) a big problem. I attend gigs and festivals fairly regularly, and the fact that some venues/vendors don't take these sorts of steps to stop touting is beyond me.

I've been to Reading Festival 3 times now. I've heard that around half of tickets go to touts initially, who sometimes charge double the nominal price for their tickets. The initial tickets sell out within a matter of an hour or two (100,000 or so tickets). I've had friends who've had their internet go down, and have gone to queue at the few physical stores their sold at all night only to find they only had 100 tickets or so. I've had friends who've only been sent their tickets on the DAY they're leaving, and that was after much phone shouting.

This is a problem that can be avoided. Glastonbury festival requires you to register and provide photo ID of yourself before you buy a ticket. The ticket then arrives with your name and photograph printed on the front. This has now eliminated touting, which is great. When you're potentially keeping hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of pounds in fans' pockets, who loses? The rough dickheads who shout at you and (I've seen this happen) punch people for calling them out? Grandmas can make do. If you use the glastonbury system, a grandmother could still buy a ticket for a grandson provided he registers first. He doesn't need a credit card or ID at the event.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[toddestan]

Well, it doesn't always have to be money. One of the ways it used to work is the best tickets would go to those people who were willing to spend the most time to get them (camp out in line, things like that). Another way to do things is to allocate the tickets to the luckiest fans (basically, a lottery system). While these are simply alternative ways to distribute a scarce resource, most people consider them to be more fair than the system where the tickets go to the people who are willing to pay the most, which is what the scalpers turn it into.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[toddestan]

You also have to keep in mind that the goal of the concert promoter (and/or the band) may not be to make the most money. In many cases, they would rather fill the venue instead. It's a big thing to be "sold out" at a large venue, and I'm sure many bands would prefer more of their fans have the opportunity to see them in concert rather than a few more dollars (there are exceptions, of course). Hence, there may be a very good reason they picked the spot on the supply-demand curve that they did, and all that the scalpers do is sweep in and change the market so that they can make money acting as a middleman, often at the expense of the band, their promoters, and the fans.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[noidentity]

Scalpers exist because ticket sellers set their price too low. If the tickets were prices at what people were willing to pay, then there would be no room for a scalper to raise them. One service scalpers provide is the ability to get a ticket at the last minute.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[shentino]

The problem is that by catering to spammers you prove that you don't really give a fuck how they got the electronic manpower they needed to reach you.

You are subsidizing botnet herders, spammers, hackers, and all sorts of nefarious people.

Sorta like how people who buy gold on WoW or ISK on EVE support account crackers and keylog producers.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[bill_mcgonigle]

If I buy 10 of the new Xbox 360 from the local Walmart where there are lots, and sell them on eBay for a profit, is that "scalping" 360s ?

Yes, it is. You took a commodity that was easily available, deliberately created an artificial scarcity and then took a profit from it.

He's talking about moving goods from areas of plenty to areas of scarcity, really just fixing a distribution system problem. He's not buying them in Detroit and selling them in Detroit, he's selling them to Silicon Valley. WalMart sent too many to Detroit and not enough to San Jose. He profits by fixing the supply problem.

People are still trained to revile this kind of behavior. A couple years ago there was a really bad ice storm here in New Hampshire, where one of the regional power companies got burned for doing poor line and tree maintenance. Customers were out for weeks. A few days into the ice storm's aftermath, when all the local stores' generators were sold out, a bright fellow rented a tractor trailer and drove down to New Jersey, and packed up a truck load of generators. He brought those back to New Hampshire and sold them for the cost of goods, plus transportation, plus profit (IIRC, $200-$300 over typical retail). He was excoriated for doing so by the local press and bureaucrats, but the people who bought them were saving the cost of such a trip themselves, plus the cost of replacing burst frozen pipes. He should have been rewarded and continued making those trips every day for the next three weeks - more people would have saved money on the net.

The big box stores got their inventory response squared away about a week after the power went back on.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[sjames]

The generator guy was probably reviled because he made a HUGE profit rather than a more fair one.

Numerous psychological studies suggest that people aren't "trained" to revile that sort of thing so much hard wired. For example, in one such experiment there are two participants. One gets a sum of money and is free to divide it between himself and the other participant. The other participant may either accept the offer or choose that neither of them gets to keep any of the money.

While pure economic theory suggests that as long as the first gives the second any money at all, the second should accept it, in fact if the division isn't close to 50-50 the second will punish the greed even to his own detriment.

Perhaps that's because in the long term in a non-zero sum world, human tribes are better off punishing excessive greed even at a cost to themselves. Reward the gougers once and be gouged forever. Suitably punish them the first time and they will offer a more fair deal in the future to the benefit of all (including themselves).

Effectively, the generator guy got $50 and gave the other guy $1 (at least in the public perception, I don't have any idea how much he actually made but it was probably a fair amount). As a result, he is reviled even though without him there wouldn't have been even $1. Had he taken a lesser profit (or been perceived to have taken a lesser profit) he would be hailed as one of the heroes.

Adam Smith actually counted on such effects (even though they were less rigorously understood at the time) as a mechanism to regulate free trade.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The generator guy was probably reviled because he made a HUGE profit rather than a more fair one.

Yeah, it's the "fair" that was the tricky bit.

He was driving 700 miles in a rented truck (w/ driver), still some snowstorm activity going on, paying retail in NJ (plus tax which we don't have here), and needed to have some incentive to do the work. Based on the complaints that he was charging $200 more than Sams Club per generator, I figured he was making $2-3000 on a truck load of 50 units after expenses. A reasonable margin, but normal for small businesses.

The odd psychology of the situation was the government people who really weren't doing anything useful, who were calling press conferences to announce investigations into his not selling them for what Sams Club was selling them for before the sold out. Which is an impossible thing to expect, even if he were doing it entirely at cost.

I think there were trying to look like they weren't completely useless, given the crisis, but they did cause actual harm instead, since the guy just gave up fearing prosecution.

I talked to a few people about it who had read the papers and were mad at the 'gouging' but it never took more than two or three questions to get them to understand and usually accept the other side of the story. Our local paper wouldn't ever print something calling into question a prosecutor's motives though.

Re:What is wrong with scalping? Really?

[sjames]

Fair would depend on how many generators are in a "truckload" and what the truck+driver cost him.

It could be that in his case the profit was fair but politicians who want to deflect blame from themselves whipped up a public perception that he made a killing. The public might otherwise choose to focus on why public officials didn't do the same thing at no profit as a reasonable response to a crisis situation.

However, price gouging is all too common in such situations (another is in repairs after hurricanes and tornadoes) and many places have enacted specific laws against it.

problem solved

[jlebrech]

Dutch Auction. Set the ticket prices at $2000 at first. and the price is lowered depending on website traffic.

That way the touts have to risk buying at a high price in order to sell on. or if someone really wants to pay a high price to guarantee a seat they can also.

Prepaid debit card?

[LordKronos]

So here's a possibility for scalpers (or anyone) to get around this. Buy a prepaid debit card for the amount of the ticket purchase, use that to purchase the tickets, and then give the prepaid card (which has no value anymore) to whoever you want to get the tickets. That will mostly solve the problem for scalpers. The only gotcha left will be that they'll need to resell them in the exact batch sizes that they bought them (so they can't buy 6 tickets and sell them 3+3).

I really wish there were a way to screw scalpers and put them out of business, but I just don't see a good way to do it.

If ripoff prices are the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If ripoff prices are the problem, why are you not removing Ticketmaster? The way to solve this issue is to make selling a ticket for more than face value fraud. This would knacker Ticketmaster, because they wouldn't be able to slap a 40% surcharge on the front (or touts would do the same). But it DOES solve your *stated* problem.

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[MrTripps]

Mr. Burns: (chuckles) And to think, Smithers, you laughed when I bought TicketMaster. "Nobody's going to pay a 100% service charge." Smithers: Well, it's a policy that ensures a healthy mix of the rich and the ignorant, sir.

And the real problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your considering Miley Cyrus to be a musician.

One way to solve the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming you want to solve the problem (it would seem that venues themselves shouldn't want it - every free space because someone couldn't attend is more space for those that go):

Make the person who paid for the ticket be able to (optionally and not by default selected) re-enter his or her full details in order to be sent a long transfer code. Anyone should be able to use this, and the first person to do so supersedes the previous ticketholder. When you use it a message is sent to the buyer that their ticket has been transferred. The first buyer should also be able to rescind the transfer, though with a delay of several days so the recipient can dispute it.

I'll take...

[Anonymous Coward]

... paperless tickets for a hundred moneyless dollars, Alex.

Seriously, though, ability to resell and such are useful, like if I can't go for some reason, unless the original salesman guarantees buy back for the full price at all times, no questions asked. But, what about privacy? Can I buy this stuff for cash, anonymously? If not, why not? Why do you insist on inventing systems that won't take cash without also pilfering my right to privacy?

How do they get that many anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they are slapping DRM on the system.

How in the world are the scalpers obtaining that many premium tickets in the first place that it is a problem?

Why don't the venues scalp?

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I can understand the history of ticket distribution. I liked it back in the 1970s when I could go to a record store before it opened in the morning and score third row tickets for face value. Those times are long gone. And they weren't perfect, either. Shenanigans happened in the old days, too. I'll never forget being first in line, circa 1980, at the Astrodome to buy tickets to a Heart concert at the Summit. (Things were weird during the transition to centralized sales.) Tickets went on sale at the Dome an hour before anywhere else. As I approached the line, there were already two people in line who had somehow been allowed inside before the gate opened to the public. They bought every single floor ticket, every single ticket in the first tier. I literally had to run out of there before I gave in to an overpowering urge to (I'm serious, here) kill the broker who turned to me with hundreds of tickets under his arm and offered to sell me one.

Nowadays, though, online sales have the potential to make scalpers obsolete. Why don't venues scalp their own tickets?

Set the face value of the ticket at USD$10K. Put them on sale at that price 6 weeks before the event. Then discount the price a bit more each day as the event draws nigh. Finally, when the event starts, price the rest at next-to-nothing.

All the tickets will sell at the prices people are willing to pay. There's no artificial scarcity created by the fact that brokers have bought up every single ticket in less than a minute after they went on sale. The tickets dribble out at maximum profit with minimal negative impact on the fans. The potential for the venue to under-report sales and rip off the record companies/artists should be minimal if some form of third-party oversight can be agreed upon.

What's not to love?

Re:Why don't the venues scalp?

[alen]

probably because the venues don't want to sell tickets. they want their rent fee and parking fees and let someone else do the selling. they don't want to run servers or code the software to sell the tickets. it doesn't make sense for every venue to do this, which is why there is ticketmaster to do it for everyone. it's like outsourcing.

and something similar is already done for the crazed fans. You pay up to $1000 per ticket for backstage access to have the performers tell you how much they care about fans and make you believe they care. they call it some super duper package or something like that.

what i never understood is why the artists don't perform more shows since there is a demand for it? that will solve most problems and put the brokers out of business along with limiting the amount of tickets sold per person

Re:Why don't the venues scalp?

[Late Adopter]

There would still be scalpers to sell to people who decide at the last minute they want to attend but would be willing to pay a high-ish price. But that would be more acceptable to me, since everyone would at least have the same chance as the scalpers to buy tickets, rather than some random lottery or being well-connected to the seller.

Possible Solution

[oktokie]

If you approach the concert ticket with same approach as how airlines do the business...

1. id should be enough to gain the entrance, because some people don't have access to the creditcard.
2. cannot attend for some reason, give refund according to the time table like university's tuition or refund in the form of ticketmaster credit or band credit.
3. transfer can be possible with transfer fee high enough which should make scalping unattractive and limit the transfer to 3 transfer per year and one person can only buy one ticket to the venue and account is tied to the ID rather than creditcard number.

So what?

[sribe]

Without the ability to transfer virtual tickets, brokers and dealers fear being run out of business...

Not even an attempt at a segue, just straight from the "grandma problem", which has an easy and obvious solution, to this. Well, brokers should be put out of business.

Not good for consumers?

[AhabTheArab]

Businesses don't care about what's best for consumers. They care about what's best for businesses and Ticketmaster has a near monopoly on that market. They're often the only place to buy tickets from. Even if you buy direct from a venue's box office - it's Ticketmaster. Don't forget about Ticketmaster's reseller's under different names and higher prices like ticketsnow and livenation. How much money can we squeeze out of these poor saps? More. More. More.

ticketsnow.com

[johosaphats]

Doesn't TicketMaster own TicketsNow.com, a "resale marketplace" (read scalper website)?

same bullshit as the airlines

[splatter]

Airlines have been doing the same thing for years now which pisses me off to no end. Not that there is a scalper problem with flights but good luck if you can't use a reservation because you can't refund it or transfer it to someone else, and they haven't been tickets since the early 80's.

Basically they did it to lock in customers, prevent 2rd party sales, and keep customers from being able to get money back. Happened before and I'm sure nothing is going to stop ticket master from making it happen again I'm afraid.

  Were is Ralph Nader when you need him?

Lines

[CapnStank]

"and to banish long will-call lines"

Bullfuckingshit

I went to Iron Maiden last week. I showed up with my friends roughly 15 minutes before the opening act (Dream Theater) was scheduled to hit the stage. I got in on their second last song.

Fuck paperless, I have sworn off any concert that uses them from here on out because of that experience. And no, it isn't reasonable to require everyone to show up 1 hour before the show just so they can get inside in time to see the opening act

Re:Lines

[Canazza]

Dream Theater opening for Iron Maiden?! You're lucky you got in at all :D
but yeah, saying paperless system will speed up entry is utter nonsense. You still have to brandish your card/ID and they still have to check the system.

Re:Lines

[Wansu]

"Fans buy tickets with a credit card and must then go to the venue with the same credit card and a photo ID to gain admittance."

"And no, it isn't reasonable to require everyone to show up 1 hour before the show just so they can get inside in time to see the opening act."

Yep. With paperless, they have to see your credit card and ID, which creates a bottleneck. After enough people have experiences like missing most of Dream Theatre, not to mention standing in unnecessarily long lines, concert attendance will decline.

I'm surprised they're doing something like this in the middle of the worst recession in my lifetime. I'd think they would be trying to make the concert experience more appealing. Instead, they're doing things that will aggravate people and discourage attendance.

Re:Lines

[CapnStank]

They have little handheld computers that swipe the credit card so its fairly quick but more often than not there were issues where people:
A) Didn't have their ID immediately accessable
B) Credit Card didn't swipe
C) Too drunk to get their wallet open
D) Too dumb to accomplish any of the above.

I've seen I.M. live before so I knew what was getting, I have been waiting 10 years for Dream Theater however and was rightfully pissed when the first song I heard was concluded with "Thank you everyone!"

Go away, you're not 21

[tepples]

When I was in university, and I went to a lot of concerts, they were usually small shows at local bars.

That works in Canada but not in the United States, where a student is ineligible to enter a bar for the first two and a half years of university.

Why would I want to pay $100 to go to a venue with terrible sound

Because the band will likely have broken up by the time you reach drinking age.

Re:Carrying ID + creditcard to a concert = bad ide

[Anonymous Coward]

I never take a credit card to such a concert/festival. I only bring a debet card (which nobody can use without a pin-code) and I also leave my ID at home if I don't cross any borders.

First of all, how do you drink without an ID? Almost everywhere now cards everyone, except maybe the little old grandma with the walker.

Second, you do realize that every debit card issued now carried either a VISA or a MasterCard logo and can be used in exactly the same way?

So...

[chucklebutte]

now that everything is paperless we wont have that shitty ticketmaster fee of $47.50 they add to every fucking ticket price of $99.95??? Or is it my face is too deep into the bong this early in the morning that has me wishing for such wishful things?

Honor is the problem

[Prien715]

I love to do things last minute and have had a lot of things happen to me last minute. There's a little thing on the back of the ticket that says you can't sell it for more than retail value, but it's enforced about as well as copyright law on the internet. And if you want to know why that's a good idea, ask the bands. The guys who can afford $500 tickets aren't the ones you want going to your shows, but maybe the ticket's worth that much.

That said, having bought and sold tickets to Burning Man (damn sister getting married that weekend), I've never seen a ticket for more than asked price, even though there's 3 entirely arbitrary price levels (i.e. 3 price levels for exactly the same ticket). The difference? Honor.

You look at what Metallica's fans did at Woodstock and you see who they are.

Do what U2 does: problem solved.

[Tarantura]

U2 initially sell concert tickets based on how long you've been a member of their fan club. Being a long-time member, I have the privilege of easily being able to get the best tickets days before, say, newer fan club members (and even longer than the general public). Scalper issue solved for 'real' fans.

Don't have a long-time fan club membership? Tough shit (sorry, Grandma!).

Purchased $50 tickets for being right up against the front stage, even hours after the tickets go on sale (as in the 97,000 record-breaking sell-out at the Rose Bowl last year).

Want to sell those tickets? No problem. I was quite tempted to sell based on seeing prices on eBay (you simply exchange that ticket for a wristband for those with G.A. admission at the venue).

Brilliant. No fans complained. "Real" U2 fanatics had their tickets for far less than eventual scalper prices.

Could U2 have made much more money, knowing it would sell out by only charging $50 when $250 would have sold just as easily? Well, that's a whole different topic.

fees fees fees

[TheBeardIsRed]

I realize that things of this nature are becoming less and less common, but a ticket should be just that. A bearer instrument which has the ability to be transferred. Many people don't even know what a "bearer bond" is anymore and the ones who do have mainly just watched a few heist movies.

Also, isn't that ostensibly what the "ticketing fee" is for? Actually providing a ticket?

Economically Speaking...

[uslinux.net]

I don't think this benefits Ticketmaster as described. Keep in mind scalpers are doing nothing but trying to take advantage of an arbitrage opportunity (buy cheap tickets, auction for a much higher value).

It's simply a question of who captures the "value" (economic surplus). Suppose consumers and scalpers pay $100 per ticket. Scalpers resell their tickets at an average cost of $200. In that case, consumers and scalpers captured $100 of "value". Those consumers that purchased from the scalpers captured $0 in value. And ticketmaster and the performers captured $100 in value (but lost an additional $100 they could have captured). I don't know if ticketmaster gets a flat fee, or a flat fee plus a percentage of the gross receipts, or what, but it would seem the primary loser in this instance is the performer (and ticketmaster potentially secondarily).

If scalpers can't resell their tickets, then *all* tickets sell for $100. Now consumers capture the same $100 in economic value (both the original consumers and now the ones who would've purchased from scalpers). The scalpers get $0 value. And the performers still miss out on the additional $100 in value. Ticketmaster is unaffected by this (assuming the show still sells out, which is would in this instance).

The "Grandma" argument is relevant, though it's likely a small percentage of Ticketmaster's sales. Airlines have the same policy - I've run into this where my father purchased a ticket in my name but United Airlines would not let me board the plane without having his credit card for validation (which as I pointed out to them is a retarded policy, since if I had *stolen* the card I would have it handy, and if I was a marginal criminal I would have his number embossed on a fake card). At the time I had to purchase a new ticket and he had to file for reimbursement (I'm not sure if this is still their policy).

It seems to be the biggest reason Ticketmaster would do this is the same reason the airlines went to e-tickets over paper tickets - it's *significantly* cheaper to handle. The airlines said that e-ticketing saved them $30 per ticket (even after accounting for all the automated ticket booths). Even if you don't believe that number, and you agree ticketmaster's costs are lower, if they save $1 per ticket that easily amounts to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, with the added bonus of cutting down on credit card fraud (at least as well as the airline policy above describes)

Venues don't scalp to reduce their risk

[John_Sauter]

Why don't venues scalp their own tickets?

The issue for venues is liability for refunds. If you buy a ticket from a third party, and the event is canceled for some reason, the venue will refund you the face value of the ticket, even if that is far less than you paid. You won't get anything back from the scalper.

I suspect (though I cannot prove) that the venues get an under-the-table cut of the scalper's profits in exchange for early access to tickets.

numerous options

[Weezul]

I've been seeing like 1 or 2 shows per week for the past years without paying anything, alright not Metallica or Springsteen, but damn fine musicians. I'm also supporting the bar who pays the band by buying drinks of course. Oh but yeah I'll actually like see friends at the bar, flirt with girls, etc. I've also been know to enjoy local raves which usually have far better music bars or stadium concerts, well assuming you like electronic music.

I've no clue what morons actually buy tickets for shows controlled by ticketmaster, presumably largely pre-teens who've only discovered one or two mega popular bands, but not really yet experienced the world.

The problem is simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be, the fans choose the bands. Well, the fans have spoken, and there is a working relationship between artists and fans. Now the artists are trying to pick their fans. It's a lowball attempt to restrict the flow of money, which says something about the artists themselves: they don't care about the fans, they just want the money.

Also...

[Genocaust]

Dumping tickets aside, what about for memorabilia sake? Growing up I sure kept every ticket stub I had since it was the only memorabilia I could afford and I was never lucky enough to snag a pick/drum stick/shirt/etc. I've also had a problem of buying tickets for a group and having 1 or more people back out last minute -- it seems silly to waste seats to a good show, so I've always ended up just giving them away to anybody who will take them.

Why couldn't tickets be auctioned off?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a concert tickets sold via a service like Ebay. Have a high "Buy it now!" price -- like what a scalper might charge -- but no reserve price, and you get to choose what you bid on which seat. Close the bidding a week before the concert (or whatever), and let people do whatever they want with the physical ticket.

As it is, concerts have to guess the price people will pay -- too low, and scalpers come out, too high and you have empty seats.

You point out...

[twoallbeefpatties]

You point out another issue that doesn't always get mentioned in scalper arguments - some bands actually do give a shit about their fans. It's crazy to believe that in the cynical times we live in, but some bands actually don't want their biggest fans to have to pay thousands of dollars to sit in the front row at their shows.

Easy!

[AnAdventurer]

They (Ticketmaster) will impose a fee to transfer the ticket. Then they will be the scalper and middleman. I would like to point out that these are not like e-airline tickets as you can buy those for someone else and have multiple options when picking up the boarding pass (like using the conformation code, last name OR credit card). Then there is Miley Cyrus, I know kids are getting credit cards young, but other then some pervs aren't most of her fans 8 year old girls?

musicians as diverse as

[houghi]

musicians as diverse as I bet it ain't the artists and not even their managers, but the labels who are all behind this. They want to control everything what they can not control. They also have the power to change the law. Be it copyright or be it the right to sell what you bought.

In their eyes, you never are the owner, they are. No matter what logic you will bring up, they will say that they own it.

I am sure the music and film industry sued the devil after he bought their souls. And then won that case.

Where's the competition

[bugs2squash]

Perhaps Visa could set up an alternative to ticketmaster that issues the tickets as prepaid credit cards. I know the venue says you have to take your ID, but I bet it's only as a backup in case the credit swipe does not match their records. For, say, $50 I could buy a prepaid card that is guaranteed to be accepted in payment for a concert ticket or offers, say $30 of regular credit against anything else I would like to buy if I decide not to go to the concert.

Re:Do what U2 does: problem solved.

[LordKronos]

U2 initially sell concert tickets based on how long you've been a member of their fan club. Being a long-time member, I have the privilege of easily being able to get the best tickets days before, say, newer fan club members (and even longer than the general public). Scalper issue solved for 'real' fans.

I've been a fan of my favorite band for >20 years. I buy every record released the day it comes out. I've been to every single concert since I started listening (if they performed 3 times on a tour, I went to see them all 3 times, even if the shows were on consecutive nights). Yet I'm not a member of their fan club. I don't join fan clubs. It's just not my thing. I guess that makes me a 'fake' fan, huh? Thankfully U2 is not my favorite band. It's cool that they are trying to reward their fans, but don't trick yourself into thinking that 'real' fans don't get left out.

No. That's my seat!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple question: Without a ticket how do you know where to sit? And how do you settle arguements over seats?

This makes no sense.

Things to keep in mind...

[TheSync]

1) Ticketmaster is a risk-hedger for venues and promoters. They are not a ticketing company, that is a side line. Today, anyone could start a web site and be a ticketer. But Ticketmaster provides guaranteed lock-in fees to venues to reduce venues' risks. Judging from their SEC filings, I think about 50% of "convenience fees" fund the lock-in fees to venues.

2) Ticket "brokers" (professional scalping agencies) are risk hedgers for promoters and Ticketmaster. They buy up large blocks of tickets on the speculation that they can resell them above face value. This doesn't always happen.

3) Artists "signal". They would love to make their fans think they support cheap and equally-priced tickets for everyone. Of course, they typically scalp their own complimentary ticket blocks. And they are mad that brokers sometimes make profit on ticket resale that the artists don't get. Artists are conflicted over whether they want "dynamic pricing/auctioning" of their primary tickets because of the need to signal their humanitarian-equality feelings to their fans.

4) If everyone (artists, venues, and fans) was honest, there would be dynamic pricing of the primary ticket market like airplane tickets, which would leave resale to those "i'm sick/can't go" situations for the most part. Hedge funds independent of ticketing would be set up to provide risk-hedging to venues and perhaps promoters. But no one wants to be honest that they want to maximize profits, thus the subterfuge.

Re:Things to keep in mind...

[bill_mcgonigle]

But Ticketmaster provides guaranteed lock-in fees to venues to reduce venues' risks.

How does this work? They pay an up-front $6/seat or so regardless of its eventual sale? Then additional sales profits are split in some way?

Grandma is now a scalper

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem now is that everyone and their grandma's are now scalpers with internet. Shows are sold out in 6 min because everyone buys the maximum they can so they can scalp the ones they don't use online.

Neverthless, take an example of Madonna in Montreal :

      - First, Madonna takes all the best seats and auction them on ticketmaster auction site
      - Corporate lodges get first pick after
      - Season ticket holders get a shot a it
      - Promotion tickets are assigned (radio, contests etc...)
      - Fan Club get a shot at it

  Then whatever is left over gets sold to the public, selling in minutes, but what they don't say, is the number of tickets that were available in that 6 minutes.

Re:Do what U2 does: problem solved.

[Tarantura]

You say U2 isn't your favorite band, but you're still a 'real' fan? I believe you. Heck, they're not even my favorite. But I make a small yearly investment (US$50 first year, discounted after) to receive impressive benefits (first dibs at tickets, fan-club-only CD releases, U2.com store discounts, etc.)

I guess I'm just a real fan who recognizes the advantages of belonging to a very affordable fan-club membership. Don't want to join the Club? Your choice, but don't complain about being "left out".

I also have memberships to Sam's Club and Costco for similar reasons.

Re:Do what U2 does: problem solved.

[LordKronos]

You say U2 isn't your favorite band, but you're still a 'real' fan?

No, I didn't say that. I like some U2 songs, but wouldn't call myself a fan. I was referring to a different band, and using my case to demonstrate that being a fan doesn't equal being a fan club member.

The hell it is!

[SilverJets]

'An open market is really best for consumers.'"

Not when it comes to tickets to events like concerts or sporting events. The resellers / scalpers buy up whole blocks of tickets before the consumers even get a chance. If the "Grandma Problem" is such a big deal then ticket agents should change their rules so that the same person (or same credit card number) cannot buy more than 10 (or 20) tickets to one event. That will at least give those of us actually attending the event (and not scalping) a fighting chance to get seats.

Property or contract?

[Kaz Kylheku]

What's the difference? A contract is a property that can be bought and sold. For instance, look at futures contracts traded on options exchanges. Or assumable mortgages. We can regard a ticket as a certificate which shows that the bearer holds a contract with regard to a seat (often, a particular seat) at a particular event.

Re:Do what U2 does: problem solved.

[Tarantura]

I was referring to a different band, and using my case to demonstrate that being a fan doesn't equal being a fan club member.

I believe I understand your point. However, you do understand the benefits of obtaining certain fan-club memberships, no? If your favorite band had something similar to U2's method, would you still refuse to join? You'd miss out on hands-down the best tickets available for the least amount of money needed to purchase, free members-only CD releases...the list goes on. Money apparently isn't the issue for you since you say you attend every concert your band performs, purchase all their material, etc.

I don't think anyone's being tricked, as you state, "into thinking that 'real' fans don't get left out." I'm just stating what U2 management does - it actually costs LESS, in the end, by being a member for that 'real' fan (e.g., the $50 tickets are typically sold out before the general public gets a chance leaving much more expensive seats further away, free members-only CDs that are quite expensive in the aftermarket and eventually become collector's items). For me, quite literally, the membership fee pays for itself very quickly. Screw the scalpers/brokers.

Back to the main OP - I'm not a fan of a paperless ticket requiring ID and/or credit card for entry into, for example, a concert. Same reason I prefer physical media (PC or console games, etc.) - much greater ease of selling or giving away, if desired. I fully understand paperless for airline tickets (background checks on name), plus it's easier just having an I.D. for check-in.

owch

[AdamWill]

So, let me get this straight - we have to decide whether we want to side with ticket touts or Ticketmaster?

Yikes, it's like choosing between an intimate night of passion with Dick Cheney or being fired into the heart of the sun. How do you decide?!

zzxx

[thinsoldier]

" 'People should be free to give away or sell their tickets to whomever they want, whenever they want,' says Gary Adler, a Washington attorney who represents the National Association of Ticket Brokers. 'An open market is really best for consumers.'" The same can be said for games on Steam. I hate TF2. I'd gladly give my "copy" away to anyone who wants it, but I can't.

Solution will migrate to Airline Industry

[cellurl]

I don't have any problem with scalpers. Everything worth a damn has an intermediary, housing-sales (realitors), movie stars (agents), contractors (headhunters).

What I hope will happen is that paperless-and-transferrable tickets will someday move into the monopoly of Airline-Tickets.
Airline tickets should be on the Dow-Jones or some equivalent, so I can buy a last minute ticket.

So I welcome ticketmasters solution to the grandmother problem. May it find its way to Delta!

New Android widget for $0.99 helps you with the speedlimit on all USA roads and beyond.

But scalpers take risks

[DABANSHEE]

If they expect too high a price they are left with a bunch of unsold tickets that are worthless.

Remember if you don't want to pay the high price a scalper demands you have the right to say no, if all like minded did the same scalpers would go out of business.

scalpers rarelly have a monopoly

[DABANSHEE]

Where there's one there's useally more.

& one can negotiate as the tickets become worthless if scalpers hold onto them too long

There are no good guys.

[customizedmischief]

This story puts me in the uncomfortable position of having to decide if I hate Ticketmaster more or scalpers more. I'll have to get back to you on that.

So happy

[euroq]

To all of you who say that the free market says that scalpers should be able to buy and sell tickets as they please, F off. I have had to purchase tickets for three to four times the original amount because of scalpers. BTW, scalping is not a free market "feature" but a problem, because it is generating fake scarcity. Imagine a situation where someone goes to the store and buys all the bread and sells it outside at three times the original price; that's not the free market, because the regular market forces are no longer determining the prices, but instead a single entity/monopoly.

Beat the scalpers

[Anonymous Coward]

I belong to my favorite group's offical fan club. I get my choice of good seats, at face value, before they go on sale to the public.

I'm fine with this - on one condition

[samael]

I'd be absolutely fine with this - if you could get a refund from the original ticket company at your whim. If I can't go to a concert at the moment I can resell the ticket. If they stop me doing that then they should refund the money (heck - keep the processing charge) and then resell it to someone else.

Paperless tickets

[dugeen]

I wouldn't pay for admission for any event where I had to present identity papers to get in. Not even the Second Coming.

WHO ? WHA ?

[Anonymous Coward]

and by Miley Cyrus you mean, of course, Disney.
and by Metallica you mean, of course, DOWNLOAD BAAAAAAAAD!!
and by Bruce Springsteen you mean, of course, renting seats for the show...LIKE A BOSS!

Fourth option

[DrYak]

There only three options for keeping initial sale price down

There's a fourth option : limit the number of tickets sold per identification token (say, per crypto-hash of Credit Card number). Most people won't buy more the 3-4 tickets. Scalper earn money by buying a lot (tens or more) and reselling all of them at a profit.

One have to find a compromise in the number of ticket allowed : low enough so it's not that much scalper-worthy, big enough so you don't have half of the city having to fill special high-volume request.

Only the first one

[DrYak]

But the holders of fake tickets will be admitted to the venue.

Only the first one. Then every subsequent "cloned" barcode will be refused because the same code has been used. Until the legitimate owner comes and can prove (showing ID or Credit card) that he has the legitimate original copy of the barcode.